If Iran wants nukes, should we send them some?

[dannubis]

well they only had two bombs ready at that time ...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


IIRC, modern nuclear devices ("hydrogen bombs") has a layer of radioactive material as the outermost layer. It is supposed to be blasted into the target area, causing contemination.

IIRC salted bombs were never extensively deployed by either the US or the USSR. There were too few targets where it's effects would be militarily useful.

Certainly salted bombs would not have been used in ww2 where the effects of fallout were barely even recognized.

[Traianvs]

Alright I didn't realize that land would recover after a few years, but still... Modern warfare should be fought on a smaller scale, not like WWI or WWII.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yes, we should fly a nuke into Iran.

and drop it.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


HIroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because most large Japanese cities had already been laid waste in raids that were sometimes ever more costly in human lives. What is the point of nuking square miles of ruble like the middle of Tokyo after the March raids?

The US also chose "virgin" areas so it could measure the effects of the weapons for themselves and demonstrate, not only to Japan, but also our supposed ally USSR the total effectiveness of the weapons.

Like you said, dropping the A-Bomb on rubble would not have served either purpose.

[Lancer]

Makes you wonder....where's the love?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Lancer
Makes you wonder....where's the love?

Not much in World War.

[Lancer]

All is fair in love and war. Huh.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


IIRC, modern nuclear devices ("hydrogen bombs") has a layer of radioactive material as the outermost layer. It is supposed to be blasted into the target area, causing contemination.

NOt really. Putitng an extra layer of radioactive material was an idea cooked up to boost the yield on hydrogen weapons, but the fact is if anything, the "normal" hydrogen weapons is "cleaner" and an atomic weapon because not as much alpha radiation is created during fusion, which is what gives most of the power to thermonuclear devices, so in terms of total energy output a 20 Megaton blast will release a much smaller percentage of its energy as radiation than say a 50 kiloton blast.

[Kuciwalker]

...

Cleanness refers to the persistent radioactivivity, not the radiation of the initial blast.

All of the initial blast's energy is released as radiation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

No it's not. If the U.S. had really been so gung ho on killing as many people as possible and making a statement, they would've nuked Kyoto...

You are wrong to think that because the aim is to terrorize the population, you have to do it by killing the most people. The uS did imagine an aftermath to the war, a rebuilng of Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major cities, but in a sense better to make examples off than a more densely populated City. Besides, as statedby Deity Dude both of those Cities has avoided any significant bombing prior to being hit by nukes. What better target for a new weapon than "virgin cities"?

If those targets were of significant military importance they could have long before been laid waste with B-29 raids, which would have killed tens of thousands of civilians anyways.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
...

Cleanness refers to the persistent radioactivivity, not the radiation of the initial blast.

All of the initial blast's energy is released as radiation.

What matters is how much ends up as radioactivity, how much as heat, how much turns into blast pressure, how much into EMP.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap


What matters is how much ends up as radioactivity, how much as heat, how much turns into blast pressure, how much into EMP.

You don't have it divvied up quite right. What matters is how much of it ends up as ionizing radiation, how much ends up as heat/non-ionizing radiation, how much ends up as MW or RF radiation (your "EMP"), how much ends up as the shock wave, and how much ends up as radioactive byproducts (and how long their half-lives are).

The last element is generally what people talk about when they mention clean or dirty bombs.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
NOt really. Putitng an extra layer of radioactive material was an idea cooked up to boost the yield on hydrogen weapons, but the fact is if anything, the "normal" hydrogen weapons is "cleaner" and an atomic weapon because not as much alpha radiation is created during fusion, which is what gives most of the power to thermonuclear devices, so in terms of total energy output a 20 Megaton blast will release a much smaller percentage of its energy as radiation than say a 50 kiloton blast.

A hydrogen "bomb" has as its core an atomic device. Then on the outside of that you have a layer of fusable material.

However I was talking on top of that, yet another layer of radioactive material to be dispersed by the initial blast.

As for "alpha radiation" I am not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean helium nucleii? If so that's not what causes residual radioactivity.

[Kuciwalker]

This is what happens when you let liberal arts majors think they know anything about science