Tactical nuclear weapons

[RDKirk]

Indeed, even Israel has the Neutron bomba, which kills people only, and leaves infrastructure in tact.

No, that's just fiction. A "radiation-enhanced" nuclear weapon is still a multi-megaton weapon that will still destroy an area of several city blocks. It merely emits more high frequency radiation than would normally be generated by that size of nuclear detonation. But there is no "kills people and leaves infrastructure intact" nuclear weapon.

 

[RDKirk]

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 smallest possible size is a matter of physics. What has been imminently "shrinkable" have been the devices supporting detonation--more dense high explosive triggers, more compact triggering electronics--compared to the 40s and 50s. Fissile material can be purified better, and that makes that mass smaller.

But unless you intend to kill everyone who handles and delivers the device, you still need just as much shielding. Nukes are still not "bury it in the sand and come back for it later" devices--they still need care and maintenance.

 

[Grafted In]

Well, I don't think we can really make any kind of determination as to what has been developed in recent decades, can we?
And tatteredsoul, I re-read my post and I don't think I nessecarily made any comments about hating anyone, did I?
If it appears that I did it was not my intention. I simply saw some comments online about the possible use of non-conventional weapons in that area of the world and suggested that there are a number of countries that have gone nuclear who may have developed extremely scaled down nuclear ordinances.
Personally I am convinced they have. What was posted on youtube may very well have been just such a weapon that is designed to burrrow underground before detonation, elimination the usual bright flash that can be seen by surveillance devices in space.
I've become more and more convinced that most anything is possible when it comes to technology. Just look at the sophistication built into smart phones. A decade or so ago if you suggested such a tiny, inexpensive device could do what a smart phone can they'd blow you off as a kook.
And I see no reason to believe countries such as the US, Russia, China and others have not developed technology beyond our wildest dreams.

 

[cow451]

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

Any openings? I'll update my resume.

 

[Desk trauma]

Any openings? I'll update my resume.

I'm not entirely sure that I am still on the payroll at this point.

 

[tatteredsoul]

No, that's just fiction. A "radiation-enhanced" nuclear weapon is still a multi-megaton weapon that will still destroy an area of several city blocks. It merely emits more high frequency radiation than would normally be generated by that size of nuclear detonation. But there is no "kills people and leaves infrastructure intact" nuclear weapon.

The high energy radiation is nuclear in nature - just not a fusion or fission bomb. That's why infrastructure is left fine because it is mainly gamma radiation without the heat of reaction of splitting the atom, and concussive force.

There was an allusion to this in the movie Red 2; they called it "Red Mercury." It is basically the same thing - it leaves no nuclear footprint (fission/fusion reaction,) and doesn't deliver nearly the concussive or thermal force a fission or fusion bomb does.

 

[RDKirk]

Personally I am convinced they have. What was posted on youtube may very well have been just such a weapon that is designed to burrrow underground before detonation, elimination the usual bright flash that can be seen by surveillance devices in space.

First, the only way you get any nuke deep enough not to burn through the surface is to drill an extremely deep hole governments that do it go down several hundred feet, and that takes serious equipment that if not discovered before the detonation, would be seen by "negating" the event--looking at the days and days of continuous earlier libraried coverage being taken by satellite surveillance until you catch them. "Burrowing" devices are dropped penetrating bombs--those require airplanes.

A nuclear device exploded underground can not be silenced. Period. Simply not possible. The seismic signature is too distinctive to mistake as an earthquake.

I've become more and more convinced that most anything is possible when it comes to technology. Just look at the sophistication built into smart phones. A decade or so ago if you suggested such a tiny, inexpensive device could do what a smart phone can they'd blow you off as a kook.

No, there wasn't a computer technician in the world who would have doubted ten years ago that we'd have the devices we have today. Certainly not a mere ten years ago--we were still true believers in Moore's Law. Go back sixty years, and you might find some disbelievers. In the mid 2000s, I was impatiently waiting for them to combine cell phones with PDA capabilities--I had no intention of wearing two devices on my belt. But fifty years ago we were whipping out our communicators and tri-corders, Dick Tracy was talking to his sidekick on the moon from his wrist videophone, and Maxwell Smart was talking through his shoe.

And I see no reason to believe countries such as the US, Russia, China and others have not developed technology beyond our wildest dreams.

I can dream pretty wild.

 

[RDKirk]

The high energy radiation is nuclear in nature - just not a fusion or fission bomb. That's why infrastructure is left fine because it is mainly gamma radiation without the heat of reaction of splitting the atom, and concussive force.

There was an allusion to this in the movie Red 2; they called it "Red Mercury." It is basically the same thing - it leaves no nuclear footprint (fission/fusion reaction,) and doesn't deliver nearly the concussive or thermal force a fission or fusion bomb does.

We don't have to "allude" to any fiction. A neutron bomb is merely a low-yield tactical nuke that does not have the normal degree of shielding. Neutron bombs were tested, placed into production, and actually deployed to operational forces in the mid-70s. We know what they are.

 

[nightflight]

Any bomb that would give off radiation in that region would surely be detected by Israel.