It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mine

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
Mad

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I just descoverd that the U.S. Navy has a Thermonuclear Depth CHARGE

WHOEVER HAS INFO PLEASE SPEAK



posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:06 PM
link   
What would they need that for?

maybe to blow out the alien bases in the oceans?


Mad

posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:08 PM
link   
NOW BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS HAVE A SUB THAT CAN WITHSTAND THE EXPOSION OF A REGULARE CHARGE



posted on Sep, 28 2003 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad
NOW BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS HAVE A SUB THAT CAN WITHSTAND THE EXPOSION OF A REGULARE CHARGE


No,

They have nuclear anti sub weapons because: it is still hard to target and attack submarine accuretaly.

with weapons like these, even 'long shot' that misses by 0,5-1km or even more.. the submarine will get sunk or badly damaged.



[Edited on 29-9-2003 by Bandit]



posted on Sep, 29 2003 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Does anyone know how much those cost to make / develop.



posted on Sep, 29 2003 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Likely not much more than a "dumb" nuclear bomb...


The nuclear depth charge configured ASROC on the other hand was a relatively simple device, as it was nothing more complicated than a ballistic, unguided rocket with a depth charge as payload. When employing either weapon, the idea was to place the weapon as close to the predicted position of the enemy sub and let the weapon work as designed. In the case of the depth charge, after water entry, it simply sank and detonated at a preset depth. The resulting shock wave did the rest -- water doesn't compress, but sub hulls do.





Less than 20 kilotons by the way....



posted on Sep, 30 2003 @ 11:44 PM
link   


The resulting shock wave did the rest -- water doesn't compress, but sub hulls do.

Thats funny. I am not surprised at all by this weapon. It was bound to come.



posted on Oct, 1 2003 @ 09:26 AM
link   
The nuke version of the ASROC utilizes a W44 warhead, which is actually pretty small. The system was developed to counter early Soviet SSBN's who were loitering off the coast of the US. If war broke out, a destroyer or frigate could get a few nuke ASROCs off at the Russian boomer they were trailing, in hopes of sinking or at least crippling it B4 it got its SLBMs out of the tubes.

This site has some awesome pix of the USS Agerholm live testing a nuke ASROC. BTW, there is no minimum range for a nuke ASROC. If you shoot it anything less than max range.....you are toast.

Nuke ASROC

Ahhh! The old days, when nukes were a good thing....



posted on Oct, 1 2003 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros

Ahhh! The old days, when nukes were a good thing....


be sure to wear a shirt with those very words and go straight to Japan.

fool. nukes were never a good thing. they were no good in Sodom and Gomhorra and they were no good in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. i'd love for you to say that as you see that yellow flash before you.



posted on Oct, 2 2003 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Sorry you feel that way, but nuclear weapons won us WWII, saved the lives of more than a million Japanese (thats right, Japanese) and Americans, and allowed us to not be invaded by the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War.

Nuclear weapons are a tool, no different from a screwdriver or a typewriter. Its how they are used and by whom is when you can interject your morality.

And personally, I could care less how the Japanese feel about it. You reap what you sow, and they learned their lesson the hard way.




top topics



 
0

log in

join