US tests massive bomb

Ummm.... deleted, what would be the purpose of using enriched uranium in projectiles ?
The only use for enriched uranium is for the core of a nuclear weapon ( usually a gun type device ). or reactor duel.
DU is far more effective as a projectile, due to it's heavier density.
As for using nukes, the only thing stopping them from becoming feasable, is the problem of blast containment. A projectile still can't penetrate deep enough to completely contain an explosion underground. Previous tests have shown that the minimum a 0.1kt device has to be buried ( to contain the blast effects ) is 235 ft. Considering that the B-61 mod 11 can only penetrate 20 feet of rock, it isn't feasable to use....yet.

The use of "depleted-Uranium shells" is well documented in the Gulf War, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Uranium is an incredibly heavy material so shells filled with Uranium make very good armour penetrating projectiles (i.e. anti-tank).

There's a lot of arguments about the health impact of these weapons. It's currently claimed that health impact is minimal, except at the point of impact...

I'm not sure "comforted" is quite the right word, deleted; but my impression for a good while has been that the profligate use of depleted uranium and similar nasties was pretty much an accepted fact from Desert Storm.
I also believe that "low yield" is a well-proved reality and that these "penetration" weapons would - in the general swirl of tipped projectiles, tame journalists, and departed Inspectors - be effectively invisible.
Heaven knows, MOAB and the rest seem sufficiently intimidating; it's just the sheer welter of publicity, and the emphasis on "nuclear-like" features that make Estragon scratch his head.

It has been confirmed that the US/UK will use the depleted uranium shells again in this war.

They have been blamed for the explosion in cancer rates in the parts of iraq they were used. The particles are spread easily through a very large area due to dust and sandstorms in the dry Iraqi deserts.

From a quick bit of googling the US has apparently been developing DU weapons since the 60's, although a lot of nations use Tungsten shells instead of DU. Tungsten is heavy (184 atomic mass) but not as heavy as Uranium (238 atomic mass). However, Tungsten has far fewer environmental side-effects... and it's not radioactive.

Incidentally DU is used inside the armour on the M1 Abrams. I'm glad I don't work inside one of those...

Alright,

Let's say it's a fact that DU was used during the gulf war and the evidence is convincing that the after effects of these DU devices were adverse to the health of those in proximity of "fallout" but not necessarily the initial blast.

What is the differentiation between DU weapons and chemical or biological weapons as they can kill in the same hideous time-released manner?

deleted

"The MOAB is guided by global positioning satellites, an Eglin spokeswoman said. It spreads a flammable mist over the target, then ignites it, producing a highly destructive blast."

Sounds like a really bad way to die! Similar to dousing someone in gasoline and then tossing them a match... eeeewww!

And here's an even more graphic description of the way those bombs kill...

"According to a 1993 study by the US Defence Intelligence Agency: ��The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique�Xand unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs. If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel.�� (Defence Intelligence Agency, Fuel-Air and Enhanced-Blast Explosive Technology�XForeign, April 1993. Obtained by Human Rights Watch under the US Freedom of Information Act.)"

Sounds very much like an FAE even if it apparently uses a different mechanism...

I read a couple of reports later declassified by the CIA containing autopsies of Mujahedeen fighters killed by the Russian use of FAEs in Afghanistan. It reported a 100% kill rate within a 1.5 mile radius of point of impact, usually from massive internal trauma and laceration of the lung and other internal soft tissues. Those closer to point of impact suffered severe burns over thier entire bodies. Even those underground or under sufficient cover to survive the blast effects due to lack of oxygen, since all the oxygen was burned out of the atmosphere within a radius of over 2 miles from point of impact.

And this thing is even bigger.....

Originally posted by dragonrider
Sounds very much like an FAE even if it apparently uses a different mechanism...

I read a couple of reports later declassified by the CIA containing autopsies of Mujahedeen fighters killed by the Russian use of FAEs in Afghanistan. It reported a 100% kill rate within a 1.5 mile radius of point of impact, usually from massive internal trauma and laceration of the lung and other internal soft tissues. Those closer to point of impact suffered severe burns over thier entire bodies. Even those underground or under sufficient cover to survive the blast effects due to lack of oxygen, since all the oxygen was burned out of the atmosphere within a radius of over 2 miles from point of impact.

And this thing is even bigger.....

Do you have a link to these reports ? Because there is no way an FAE weapon could kill to a radius of 1.5 miles. That simply isn't even close to being true.I thnk you vastly overestimate the power of a FAE. In one of your previous posts you state that a 2000lb FAE is equivalent to a 5kt nuke - Come on now that's just BS.

Because there is no way an FAE weapon could kill to a radius of 1.5 miles. That simply isn't even close to being true.I thnk you vastly overestimate the power of a FAE. In one of your previous posts you state that a 2000lb FAE is equivalent to a 5kt nuke - Come on now that's just BS. Posted by Mad Scientist

The information I am quoting came from articles published in Miltech (World Defense Almanac), a periodical published in the Netherlands about world military technology and developments. I read these articles years ago, while the Russians were still in Afghanistan, so no, I cannot post those specific stories. And granted, working from memory, I may be overstating the ranges somewhat (*maybe*), but I DO remember that the Russians produced 100% kill rate to a range of 1 mile blast radius. As far as the explosive potential of the FAE, 1-5kt yield in a 2000 lb sized weapon is very real....

Come on 1-5kt, no way. I can tell you right now that, this figure is nowhere near correct.
It just isn't physically possible for a 2000lb FAE to produce an explosion that size. Or any conventional explosive that size.

Have a look on the FAS website, theres a slide show of an FAE test at Groom Lake.
fas.org...

I looked at the website, and noted that there were NO statements of correlation between a specific weapon and TNT equivalent yield. There were some calculations on blast pressure gradients, but nothing that gives me a TNT equivalent per weapon. I wouldnt expect to find one anyway, the TRUE yield of these weapons are not public knowledge...

www.hrw.org...

The Russians do have their own FAE. Apparently your best hope if caught in the midst is to breath out really fast

The reasons why FAE's more or less suck, is too often the FAE deflegrates instead of detonates.

So instead of blasing a small area (maybe 500 meters at most) with a blast the equivalent of a small yeild nuclear bomb, doesn't say HOW small but you can bet under 1 kilo ton, it just splashes the area with flaming fuel.

Which is what is happening on the other site. You can clearly tell this because the sage brush just a few hundred feet from the inferno, is not being flattened to the ground. Nor is the telephone poll wichi is probably just 100 feet away.

Yeah I looked it up, when they say "Small nuclear yeild" this is in reference to the low-yeild nuclear bomb produced by the Russians which is about 1kiloton.

Yes, there is much info on FAE being comparble to small yield nukes, but this simply isn't true. It may look similar to a small yield nuke but doesn't have nearly the blast range.

Estragon leads the way (not): seriously i.c.h. had a few facts and opinions on this to-day: www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Interesting article Estragon. Unfortunately there is no factual evidence and some of the replies are obviously from people who know very little about nuclear weapons.
Enhanced Radiation ( Neutron ) Warheads are still nukes which leave a tell tale double flash signature when detonated. This flash would have been picked up by foreign satellites.

Red Mercury is interesting, but I bellieve that this was just a falacy. I read somewhere that irradiated red mercury was able to be used as a fissile material by itself. Something which isn't possible.

Mad Scientist the Small Yeild Nuke I guess is what they are referring to it's power in its blast range.

Remember, 1 megaton = 1 mile of destruction. So 1kilo ton is 1/1000ths of a mile of destrution as a crappy rule of thumb, of course that is TOTAL destruction but it's a guestimate

So if the low-yeild is only 1 kilo-ton then an FAE can very well achieve this in blast radius (possibly) and//or maybe just in the power of the blast (where the blast could be much less than the size of an equal tonnage nuke.)

I won't say you're wrong though, I just found info that says you might be slightly off, but then I have no real way of checking it


And MadScientist I've never seen a Neutron Bomb that "exploded". Or double flashed. Unless the government isn't lying and a rocket somehow magically makes an aurora in the sky. No, this was the "mother of all nukes". The true Neutron bomb, a disintigrating package that can disperse radiation over vast distances and kill all things in the area of effect.

I've heard of a Neutron Bomb that simply is an exposed Uranium core, but I don't know how effective that would be, as I was reading up on other forms that could be used it seemed to get more technical using "Heavy Water" as a component, vs. the simple exposed package.

Anyways...old info bad memory

[Edited on 14-3-2003 by Hammerite]

Did anybody see the reports on the news last night about the U.S troops and a big sandstorm that ripped up their tents etc? I think i seen it on cbs, not sure, I was drunk when i seen it.

Anyway if you did see it you will understand what I meant when I said the particles are easily spread by the sandstorms.

Could someone tell me what the benefits of using depleted uranium coated shells and bullets are? I dont know much about weapons and i dont really want to either but is there some kind of technical advantage to this? or is it just to cause the maximum amount of suffering possible? If that is the case then it is simply evil. I dont want to hear that its cheaper or easier to make them with that material because that would just be bs, but i would like to know what the point is.

kegs - it's heavier, therefore it's better at penetrating tank armour than lighter materials.

DU is used in a solid block as a projectile. There is no explosive, but the energy of the projectile hitting the tank causes a hell of a lot of damage. I think they're refered to as kinetic energy projectiles, or something like that.

You could use Tungsten, but it's about 25% lighter. Although environmentally a lot cleaner...