U.S. to test powerful explosive in Utah in preps for nuke on iran?

Its not actually 700tons is it? I was assuming that would be the amount of damage it can cause would be equal to 700tons of explosives as a Nuke would be described as having a 20 Megaton explosion. Either way, dropping a weapon like that on anyone sounds like its going to cause a lot of damage and loss of life. We should find better things to spend our money on.

Thats what I was thinking it was going to be a blast equal too 700 tons of TNT the measurement standard for explosives.

If they developed a new non nuclear explosive say 10 times more powerful then TNT a bomb using such a explosive could make a (.7 KT) blast but weigh only 70 tons. Not impossible in theory for a C-5 to carry and drop.

Then you can drop pretty much have a mini nuke without any problem of radiation.

Does anyone have an EXACT location in NTS for the detonation? Which area? NTS is huge. This would be helpful to the many tourists who will want to watch to pick the best vantage point.

Also, it bugs me Utah is in the title of this topic.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Thats what I was thinking it was going to be a blast equal too 700 tons of TNT the measurement standard for explosives.

If they developed a new non nuclear explosive say 10 times more powerful then TNT a bomb using such a explosive could make a (.7 KT) blast but weigh only 70 tons. Not impossible in theory for a C-5 to carry and drop.

Then you can drop pretty much have a mini nuke without any problem of radiation.

Funny you should mention that, metallic hydrogen has such properties. It is estimated to be 35 times more powerful than TNT adn was being looked at as a trigger for possible pure fusion weapons.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks everybody for clearing up my misconceptions about underground nuclear tests. I suppose that means that unless the Russians, French and Chinese (and the other powers capable of detecting nuclear tests) have the same idea it's probably nothing more than an oversized conventional bomb. And I figure with the way things are heating up over Iran it's not suprising that we're trying for scare tactics.

Originally posted by rogue1


Funny you should mention that, metallic hydrogen has such properties. It is estimated to be 35 times more powerful than TNT adn was being looked at as a trigger for possible pure fusion weapons.

35 times more powerful then TNT. That would mean a (.7KT) blast would need onlt 20 tons of the stuff thats about double the weigh of a MOAB I think.

Very possible for a C-5 to carry something like that.

Good find never knew of anything conventional with that much power

The only thing is that the only time mettalic hydrogen was made here on Earth it was in 1996, for several miliseconds, and they didn't expect it to happen. It's very difficult to produce, because it requires extreme pressures to create. So while they say it has so much explosive power, it's not something we're likely to see used in bombs for awhile.

"Metallization of hydrogen has been the elusive Holy Grail in high- pressure physics for many years," said Bill Nellis, one of three Livermore researchers involved in the project. "This is a significant contribution to condensed matter physics because a pressure and temperature that actually produce metallization have finally been discovered."

In a paper delivered today at the American Physical Society's annual gathering in St. Louis, and published in the March 11 issue of Physical Review Letters, Livermore researchers Sam Weir, Art Mitchell, and Bill Nellis described the use of a two-stage gas gun at Livermore to create enormous shock pressure on a target containing liquid hydrogen cooled to 20 K (-420 F).

By measuring the electrical conductivity, they found that metallization occurs at pressure equivalent to 1.4 million times Earth's atmospheric pressure, nine times the initial density of hydrogen, and at a temperature of 3000 K (5000 F). Because of the high temperature, the hydrogen was a liquid. The intense pressure lasted less than a microsecond.

Optical evidence of a new phase of hydrogen has been previously reported using an experimental approach that involves crushing microscopic-sized samples of crystalline hydrogen between diamond anvils. However, metallic character has not been established. Metallic character is most directly established by electrical conductivity measurements which are not yet possible in diamond anvil cells at these pressures.

www-phys.llnl.gov...

Our shock compression studies use a 20-meter-long, two-stage light-gas gun built by General Motors in the mid-1960s for ballistic missile studies; the gun has been in operation at the Laboratory since 1972.
The gun consists of a first-stage breech containing up to 3.5 kilograms of gunpowder and a pump tube filled with 60 grams of hydrogen, helium, or nitrogen gas; and a second-stage evacuated barrel for guiding the high-velocity impactor to its target.
Hot gases from the burning gunpowder drive a heavy (4.5- to 6.8-kilograms) piston down the pump tube, compressing the gas. At sufficiently high pressures, the gas eventually breaks a rupture valve and enters the narrow barrel, propelling a 20-gram impactor housed in the barrel toward the target.
When the impactor hits the target, it produces a high-pressure shock wave. In a fraction of a microsecond, the shock wave reverberates through the target. Diagnostic equipment, triggered by the initial wave, measures the properties of the shocked material inside the target during this extremely brief period.
Projectile velocity can range from 1 to 8 kilometers per second (up to 18,000 mph). The preferred velocity is achieved by selecting the appropriate type and amount of gunpowder, driving gas (hydrogen for velocities at or above 4 kilometers per second, helium and nitrogen for lower velocities), pressure required to open the rupture valve, diameter of the barrel, and the metal and mass of the impactor.
The velocity of the shock wave, when combined with the initial conditions (impactor velocity, known densities, equation of state of the projectile and target materials) yields a precise measure of the pressure, density, and energy attained.

www.llnl.gov...

Oh I didnt know it was that hard to make this stuff. Thanks for the info on it.

Come to think of it isnt this the stuff people think the lower levels of Jupiter is made of?

Yup, it's the same stuff all right. Only place that has enough pressure to create it naturally.

Ok cool I did hear of this stuff before then. I remember reading that about Jupiter but didnt make the connection until you mentioned the insane pressure required to make the stuff. Thats when it clicked

I don't think they could use this as a cover up for a nuclear test. I've been watching videos of detonations, and there are no explosives that I've seen so far that look like the nuclear explosions, especially the underground nuclear tests in which it appears that all the ground within an extremely large distance is simply lifted, the things atop it destroyed, and then it falls back down. The ones I have seen of conventional explosives just simply don't look the same; and of course, the radiation aspect.

Sorry, I guess that was kind of a late comment regarding cover-ups.

Originally posted by bodrul
guess the MOAB wasnt destructive enough for the US they need even more power full weapon,

They already *have* more powerful weapons. They're called "nuclear bombs."

However, a more powerful (than MOAB) conventional bomb *would* be of value, if it was readily transportable. While a 700-ton bomb would be just dandy for the forthcoming next few generations as we fight off the forces of the 12th century, it's just not transportable.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Because if it's an underground test then in theory you'd actually have to get the geiger counter relativly close to the blast site.

Nope. You can tell the difference between an underground 0.7 kton nuke and a 0.7 kton chemical blast from the other side of the planet. The blast shock spectra are quite a bit different. The nuke is all about brissance, with relatively little heaving force.

Basically, they sound different.

U.S. to test powerful explosive in Utah in preps for nuke on iran?

Hardly.
As your article alluded to, the conventional test is on an fortified underground bunker.

Now think about that, why would that be or what would be the message being sent?

The conventional test/strike on a fortified underground bunker is simply to test bunker busting conventional warhead(s), probably checking pentration depths and the subsequent damage done by such a warhead(s).

The message sent is self-evident to those who are watching or hearing about this test, namely the Iranians. And since Iran's most sensitive and hidden aspects of its nuclear weapons program are hidden in fortified underground bunkers, again, the message is self-evident and clear, at least to those paying attention.

The test is aimed at determining how well a conventional bomb would perform against fortified underground targets, such as military headquarters, biological or chemical weapons stockpiles, and long-range missiles, that the Pentagon says are proliferating among adversary nation around the world.
Bunker buster ready for test in Nevada desert

Furthermore, and of notable interest to those paying attention here----, check this out:
New Bomb Drills for Bunkers
More here in .pdf format: Deep Digger Weapons System Concept

Personally, being this is going to be held near Vegas', it should be on pay-per-view.







seekerof

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Does anyone have any idea what sort of enrironmental impact this thing might have? I'd hate to be a shrew just chilling with my shrew babe and then BAM, killer shockwave.

Also, could it effect any livestock possibly?

And, it is my understanding that this detonation isn't so much to test any specific type of explosive as much as it is to get some real world measurements of an explosion of something with roughly 700 tonnes of TNA.

The measurements, calculations, and other inforamation retrieved from this will provide them certain target data that they can them aim for with whatever new weapons they are making or want to use.

Imagine if they find out the seismic signature from this really isn't that great, or at least not great enough that they can't say it was something else. Then, BAM, they use the tatical nuke and say, "No, you can tell form the siesmic measurements that it was only 'such and such,'" thus providing their own aliby.

Sounds scarry to me.

-O

Yes, above two posts have merit. I was just wondering, being as how we tend to come up with interesting names for military projects, will they call these Utah bomb tests "Big Love"? ''

Originally posted by The Links
Do underground tests produce mushroom clouds?

Not the ones I have seen. Or at least not an above-ground one. They just completely lift the ground and anything that might be on it within an enormous radius. You can probably find some videos of a few underground nuclear tests if you google it.

I hope this link clears things up

www.nukestrat.com...

The Nuclear theory behind this should be put to rest - NO nuclear weapon will be tested for the following reasons:

1. There is a Treaty in place banning nuke testing

2. Too much radiation would be caused. Technology is available to detect radition for very, very far away.

3. This is my main point. A blast of 100 tonnes of TNT was equal to a 0.1 kilotonne nuclear blast. That means 700 tonnes is equal to about 0.7kilotonnes. Tactical nukes are at least 5 kilotonnes. Russia and China would be able to predict the yeild of a nuke using instruments to measure earth movements etc.

So I believe this will be a 100% conventional (and therefore legal) test.