[Updated on: Tue, 22 July 2003 17:26]

Report message to a moderator

Quite interested in this myself, but the link doesn't seem to work
I'll try again later on and make a few of my own comments maybe.

Report message to a moderator

the webpage works, but you have to copy paste..


Ash

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

It would appear that some souls are either severely misguided, or that they are not taking your poll seriously. I'm shocked!

Yes, atomic fission and hydrogen fusion bombs are both termed "nuclear", since the explosions are the result of atomic-level processes.

The bombs used on Japan were both basically prototypes of two different types of fission bombs, where the splitting of heavy atom nuclei resulted in the release of energy. The first bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, was a uranium-based bomb termed the "Little Boy". The second bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, was named the "Fat Man" and was a plutonium implosion-type weapon.

Official statistics involving the use of atomic weapons on Japan during WWII.

On July 16, 1945, at the Big Three conference at Potsdam, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Great Britain drafted the Potsdam Declaration, telling Japan to surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction."

The Japanese rejected the offer on July 29, 1945.

Hiroshima: August 6, 1945, the uranium bomb, Little Boy, exploded at 8:16 a.m. Hiroshima time, 43 seconds after it left the B-29 Enola Gay, almost 2,000 feet above the ground. It had a yield equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT. Everything within four square miles was destroyed.

Instantly Killed:
70,000
Instantly Injured:
70,000
December 1945 total death toll:
140,000
1950 total death toll:
200,000

Nagasaki: August 9, 1945, the plutonium bomb, Fat Man, exploded 1,650 feet above Nagasaki at 11:01 a.m after it left the B-29 Bockscar. It had a force of 21,000 tons of TNT. Everything within three square miles was destroyed.

Instantly Killed:
40,000
Instantly Injured:
60,000
January 1946 total death toll:
70,000
1950 total death toll:
140,000

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused just a fraction of the casualties of WW II. The March 1945 fire bomb raid on Tokyo (using conventional incendiary devices) killed nearly 100,000 people and injured over 1,000,000, and

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Here again I am going to stick my neck out in the open:
I study nuclear physics at the uni and so you could probably class me as a "specialist"

A-Bombs are all the fission nukes
H-Bombs are all the fussion or thermonuclear nukes
Dirty bombs are the chemexp radioisotope dispencers
Dirty nukes are all the nukes that are "salted" to give more lethal fallout
Clean nukes are all nukes where fallout radiation is minimized.
Note this also includes all non-salted AM triggered Nukes, though LiD2 nukes of this type are much cleaner.

Generally modern ICBM nukes have exp eqx of 0.1-0.3 Mt TNT
Ballistic missiles on subs, twice that
Bomber cruise missiles = about 1Mt
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were 0.015-0.02 Mt
Nukes of 10, 20 and even 30 Mt has been tested but they are so cumbersome and 1/r^2 rule make them less effective economicaly and almost useless militarily.
The only military use of nuke more powerful than 1.5 Mt TNT I know of is the great big "dirty" hostage nuke in US. It is calculated if that device was detonated the resulting fallout would be sufficient to make all of the earth's surface uninfabbitable to all higher forms of life. I don't think that anyone else but Americans has such a Doomsday Device.

From where I stand exploding those early A-Bombs is a crime 10 times more severe than exploding the most powerfull H-Bombs for it is roughly by how much less the modern H-nukes produce of the fallout material. This is the case because today we use almost pure plutonium/LiD2 mix. It requires ten times less fissionable material to initiate and induced ground radiation is not that much of the drama as everybody paints it. Mainly because most of the nukes will go airbust not ground detonation.

To conclude, I'd like to mention that 10-13 yrs after the Cold War the United States Gov produces roughly 3-4 new nukes every day.

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Sat, 02 August 2003 23:18

....I'd like to mention that 10-13 yrs after the Cold War the United States Gov produces roughly 3-4 new nukes every day.

Well, hooray for us.

I happen to think nukes under the control of the US government is a good thing.

Good post, informative. Thanks.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[quote title=gible wrote on Mon, 04 August 2003 12:34]How clean are the clean nukes?
quote]

clean nuke = contradictio in terminis IMO. Fall-out is less, not zero. Furthermore, due to the fact that more and more countries have these things (and that the global political arena is getting more worisome by the day), it's going to be on a scale not comparable to WWII if they're ever to be used again.

No need to worry in that case, chances are pretty good you or I won't see the nuclear winter.

<slapping his head to get rid of this negativity>
And there are people that think I'm a pessimist

Luckily I've got a huge faith in mankind. Soon they will come to the conclusion, nukes are not the answer; now just hope they will see that *before* they will use them ever again,

BR

Report message to a moderator

Cheer Up Guys!
Here are some of the facts I'd like you to know:
A coal powerstation RELEASES about the same amount of uranium as the same power nuclear powerstarion consumes and stores as a nuclear waste.
Clean nukes aren't that clean that's for sure, but it is my conviction that fission activated nukes are soon going to be the thing of the past.
AM nuke is a device that uses stored ice antimatter to initiate the high temperatures needed to kick start thermonuclear reaction of the surrounding LiD2.
Calculations indicate that U need about 2-10 ng of AM to initiate ANY nuke. Say hello to 100 Mt portable nukes
With the present tech, producing antimatter is expencive. But the technology needs only a few magnitudes of efficiency improvement to become cheaper than plutonium-LiD2 nukes of today.
Now when an AM nuke explodes it leaves only two radioactive substance in the fallout: He3 and T. Both are of little concern as one of them decays rapidly and the other is fairly low energetic with long Half-Life. Induced radiation by neutrons of such a nuke is still and issue but it depends heavily on compostion of the soil near Ground Zero. In general, yes they are safe enough to use in civil engeneering. But advances in cancer treatment are needed to metigate the issue complitely.

Today's nukes require extrimely expensive maintance since their main components T and Plutonium decay fairly quickly and the nukes are 'refueled' every few yrs to keep them operational.

Report message to a moderator

nice sig btw, very uplifting

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Which weapon type was more cost effective in WWll, a nuke or a nerve gas bomb? You'd be surprised, it was the nerve gas, at least for Germans... They were the only ones to posses the technology to manufacture the first type of nerve gas in 1942. A V-1 or V-2 rocket loaded with these is much more effective that allied bombers. Germany had the capability to eradicate many times more people than they did. Why didn't they use it? Because they assumed that their adversaries had at least some sence of nobility and didn't use nerve gas of their own because it was such a terrible weapon, so they feared reprisals. In reality none of their enemies had anything close to a nerve gas agent.
We know now that Chechen rebels have many dirty bombs,(we know this because they gave one of the spare bombs to us!) why don't they use it? Cause they fear reprisal, as a use of such weapon would spell their sure eradication.
Now what did the American Gov do when they got their hands on their first nukes? They bombed the industrial centers, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Where was their fear of reprisal then?
I fear I would rather trust a nuke in hands of most terrible dictators and most atrocious armed bands than in the hands of United States Gov.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sun, 21 September 2003 23:21]

Report message to a moderator

(Warning notice inserted by Ron)
--- Warning: The following post contains the personal opinions of the author, and in no way expresses the opinions of the Moderators or the Administrator of this forum. The opinions below are quite strong and derogetory in nature towards certain cultures and governments. If such things offend you, please skip this post.

If this post creates a flame-fest with hateful speech and racial remarks, I'll have to delete both this post and replies to it. The server containing this forum is owned by a private religious university and I guarentee that I'll have to do something if this gets out of hand.

To the individuals involved: you may want to consider carrying on this debate/arguement/conversation via Private Messages. ---



LIBERALS!

Peace is what happens after you beat the snot out of the guy who hurts you. Once he can no longer fight, then you have peace. Never before. Strength and the judicious use of it makes peace. Mindless restraint and cowardly appeasement get you nowhere that you want to be.

Look to the Israelis to see what appeasement and restraint get you. The more restraint they show and the more concessions they make to the "Palestinian" leaders, the more women and children the "Palestinians" kill. All those so-called "Palestinians" (boy, is that ever a misnomer - the Israelis are the TRUE Palestinians) are not truly a race; rather, their origin is a collection of arabs disenfranchised by the failing arab dictator governments around them, who have been brainwashed into thinking the Israelis are the problem, and that there's a special place in heaven with 72 virgins for those of them who kill the Jews. How do you fight that with concessions? You can't. Before there will ever be peace in that region, one side is going to have to annihilate the other. I'm rooting for the Jews. They are a democratic and free country, who build and create things of beauty and contribute medical research to the betterment of civilization as

[Updated on: Tue, 23 September 2003 22:50] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator