Tactical nuclear weapons

[Vylo]

Those aren't nukes. They could be FOABs from Russia.

 

[Desk trauma]

Remember when the USSR broke up it was reported that at least 40 of their "suitcase" bombs were unaccounted for?

No. Do you have a source supporting that?

 

[tatteredsoul]

Wouldn't your Machine already be on the watch list for posting this then with all those

Wouldn't your Machine already be on the watch list for posting this then with all those keywords in use?

in use?

Some of my machines are protected against that, some aren't.

 

[nightflight]

No. Do you have a source supporting that?

I read about that. I don't remember what magazine I read it in though, but yeah it was believed to be true. I found this though:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/Lebedbomb.html

 

[Ana the Ist]

Those aren't nukes.

 

[Nithavela]

Those aren't nukes.

You're just saaying that because you are paid for by the government.

 

[Desk trauma]

You're just saaying that because you are paid for by the government.

They and big pharma are way behind with my checks. Monsanto too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're just saaying that because you are paid for by the government.

This is so true...

...but doesn't change the fact that I'm right Lol.

 

[nightflight]

The Kremlin pays me monthly. What's the Ruble exchange rate today?

 

[redleghunter]

How did this get by me?
Just came across several sites claiming Russia, ISIS and posibly others using tactical nukes in and around Syria

If so one of the best kept secrets. Do you think the Obama admin would miss and opportunity to point this out?

 

[RDKirk]

Nuclear weapon detonations have a number of distinguishing features. Even if contained completely underground, the seismic "sound" of the explosion (detectable anywhere in the world by a number of countries) is distinctive from an earthquake, and nobody would be detonating >500 tons of HE underground in Syria.

Detonated above ground, the unmistakable flash would be recorded by satellite detectors of a couple of countries in addition to the created fallout. Moreover, the effects of the blast itself would be distinctive enough that we'd have it even on Google Earth.

Plus, Syria is not a "closed territory" anywhere, not even in ISIS-held areas. That kind of news--photographs of victims, photographs of damage, et cetera--would get out nearly immediately. The effect of a miniature sun in your backyard does not wash away in the rain.

 

[Grafted In]

I'm reminded of the Manhattan project.
Originally the plan was to detonate "the gadget" inside of a humongous 12-14" thick container. A special railroad was built to move it from its place of manufacture to ground zero.
That idea was scrapped. I can't help but wonder what would have occurred had they use the container. People for hundreds of miles away would probably still be covering their ears

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nuclear weapon detonations have a number of distinguishing features. Even if contained completely underground, the seismic "sound" of the explosion (detectable anywhere in the world by a number of countries) is distinctive from an earthquake, and nobody would be detonating >500 tons of HE underground in Syria.

Detonated above ground, the unmistakable flash would be recorded by satellite detectors of a couple of countries in addition to the created fallout. Moreover, the effects of the blast itself would be distinctive enough that we'd have it even on Google Earth.

Plus, Syria is not a "closed territory" anywhere, not even in ISIS-held areas. That kind of news--photographs of victims, photographs of damage, et cetera--would get out nearly immediately. The effect of a miniature sun in your backyard does not wash away in the rain.

This is a solid explanation. From what I understand, even a "briefcase nuke" has a blast big enough to destroy a medium-large sized city. Frankly though, Syria would be a wasteful target of a briefcase nuke. The whole point of them is their portability which makes them particularly dangerous to 1st world nations...if they had a weapon of that sophistication, I seriously doubt they'd waste it on already war-torn Syria.

While I have no expertise in the field...from what I understand, the most obvious feature is the blinding flash. I can't emphasize blinding enough...if the blasts recorded in the video were of a nuke, there would be a moment where nothing could be seen....everything goes "white".

Aside from this, extremely large non-nuclear bombs have been getting bigger and bigger over time. There are multiple non-nuclear bombs that have tremendous payloads...some even capable of taking out an entire column of armored vehicles with just a single bomb.

While they are expensive and limited to certain nations...even less sophisticated bombs can be created by anyone willing to make the effort. I've seen IEDs buried underground that are capable of billowing the earth 20-30 feet or more into the air. My guess is that the people of Syria, in an understandable terror, are exaggerating the devastation of the bombs they've seen. It could also be a matter of ignorance and not knowing what a nuclear blast looks like...

Terrorists, as crazy as they may appear...generally aren't actually crazy. They would be well aware that they power they get from possessing a nuclear weapon is actually greater than the power they can wield by using it.

 

[Vylo]

The biggest problem with terrorists using nukes is handling. The weapon has to be virtually idiot proof, extremely durable, and well insulated. Otherwise you just end up with a bomb sitting in a camp of dead, irradiated ISIS members.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The biggest problem with terrorists using nukes is handling. The weapon has to be virtually idiot proof, extremely durable, and well insulated. Otherwise you just end up with a bomb sitting in a camp of dead, irradiated ISIS members.

Ironically, that's the idea behind the briefcase nuke. If you ask me, a far better choice for devastation of a nation's populace would be to get your hands on a living culture of smallpox...infect yourself...then spread it around around as far and wide as possible.

 

[Shemjaza]

It seems to me that adding the spectre of nukes is an attempt to make ISIS seem like a real threat to the world powers.

War bands of barbarians firing machine guns from trucks and posting blood soaked selfies on Twitter are horrible... but they aren't world war three.

 

[Grafted In]

We have no way of knowing just how small of a nuke any country that has nuclear weapons has developed. My best guess is that they have developed much smaller bombs than the vast majority consider doable. I mentioned the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomba for a reason. It was so big it was useless as a weapon. It took their biggest transport plane highly modified with the bombay doors removed as well as a system of booster rocket engines just to get it off the ground. Then the big lumbering plane released the bomb using parachutes to pull it out of the plane. The plane and it's companion plane with all of the data collection and filming equipment had to bank and hammer the throttles just to get away from the bomb before it went off. They had attatched massive parachutes to slow its descent. Even then the plane that dropped it instantly dropped a kilometer when the shock wave hit it.
My point to all of this is that this was an early nuke designed not as a weapon in the normal sense but as a weapon of terror.
Fast forward to perhaps the 80s when Russia's so called suitcase bombs were built. That's quite a reduction in size and yeald. Can we honestly think no progress has been made in the last 3 or 4 decades in making even smaller weapons for pinpoint bombing....even small enough to destroy just a few blocks of a city or even smaller yet?
I think it is pretty much accepted that the US and others have technology that is decades beyond what we are aware of.

Look, I'm not trying to prove something I know nothing about, but I do suspect Russia may be using something other than conventional weaponry against terror groups.

 

[tatteredsoul]

We have no way of knowing just how small of a nuke any country that has nuclear weapons has developed. My best guess is that they have developed much smaller bombs than the vast majority consider doable. I mentioned the Soviet Union's Tsar Bomba for a reason. It was so big it was useless as a weapon. It took their biggest transport plane highly modified with the bombay doors removed as well as a system of booster rocket engines just to get it off the ground. Then the big lumbering plane released the bomb using parachutes to pull it out of the plane. The plane and it's companion plane with all of the data collection and filming equipment had to bank and hammer the throttles just to get away from the bomb before it went off. They had attatched massive parachutes to slow its descent. Even then the plane that dropped it instantly dropped a kilometer when the shock wave hit it.
My point to all of this is that this was an early nuke designed not as a weapon in the normal sense but as a weapon of terror.
Fast forward to perhaps the 80s when Russia's so called suitcase bombs were built. That's quite a reduction in size and yeald. Can we honestly think no progress has been made in the last 3 or 4 decades in making even smaller weapons for pinpoint bombing....even small enough to destroy just a few blocks of a city or even smaller yet?
I think it is pretty much accepted that the US and others have technology that is decades beyond what we are aware of.

Look, I'm not trying to prove something I know nothing about, but I do suspect Russia may be using something other than conventional weaponry against terror groups.

The "terror groups" are highly funded, sophisticatedly backed by one or more very powerful nations. They are not fanatical idiots just running amok. And, any news or push for them to use tacticals made by certain countries for the purposes of Cold War espionage hits is straight up propoganda to get pole to focus on a war on an abstraction instead of the real players.

What has been going on for 40 years is a series of semi-hit proxy wars between Eastern powers and Western powers. The "Egyptian Goddess" namesake group is being used to gain "legal and reasonable" entry into key areas of the world map.

In other words, WWIII has already begun, or WWII never ended: we have just been fighting territorial proxy wars under "regional conflicts" cover story. For example, why are Brasil and Venezuela going down? Because of the soon to come gold-backed BRIC nations, and 1980s soviet energy influences that Venezuela still depends upon. It isn't because of Islam or radicals... it is about money, real estate and control.

Be careful who you are taught/conditioned to hate...

 

[tatteredsoul]

Tacticals don't really differentiate in their danger from, say, a 50MT weapon. The danger in nooks is the debris irradiated. That gets sucked into the air and rained back down. Generally, the radio isotopes decay toward radioiodine - with about a safety window of 5 - 14 days.

If you want to preserve the land as much as possible, but destroy important infrastructure and cripple a region - you use tacticals. They won't incinerate 200 sq mi like a Tsar would, but they would kill and dislocated people, and cause political and economic problems. Even Hiroshima would be too big for today's type of war. Indeed, even Israel has the Neutron bomba, which kills people only, and leaves infrastructure in tact. There is a completely new age of war well beyond the power and sophistication of a typical nooclear bomba. Weapons with biblical damage profiles, and no nooclear footprint.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

What's more important than being on the net?