also because it's cleaner than setting one off on the ground
[editline]4th September 2015[/editline]
"cleaner"
It looks a bit like the Trinity test (the first detonation of a nuclear weapon).
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48614545]also because it's cleaner than setting one off on the ground
[editline]4th September 2015[/editline]
"cleaner"[/QUOTE]
I'm now imagining an infomercial telling you to stop using your old "impact fuse" methods and try out the new clean and green Airburst® :v:.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/JNR_SystemMap_19641001.png[/t]
Japanese National Railway System proposal, 1964.
Best seen in a new tab.
[editline]4th September 2015[/editline]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Shinkansen_map_201503_en.png[/t]
Compare to the 2015 Shinkansen (Bullet Train) Map
[QUOTE=Kommodore;48614545]also because it's cleaner than setting one off on the ground
[editline]4th September 2015[/editline]
"cleaner"[/QUOTE]
Bigger area gets devastated in an air burst.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48614202]I thought nuclear artillery was determined to be impractical and dangerous?
Or do you mean artillery in general?[/QUOTE]
A good quarter of the US nuclear arsenal at the height of the Cold War was 155mm (W48 - 70 to 100 tonnes and its replacement the W82 - 2kt) and 208mm nuclear artillery shells (W33 - 1.2kt and its replacement the W79 - 1 to 12kt).
[editline]5th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;48616333]Bigger area gets devastated in an air burst.[/QUOTE]
Less neutrons fission or neutron activate soil and rock in an air burst producing less fallout.
[editline]5th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mjolnir82991;48614266]In general. Air bursts are common practice for both nuclear and conventional explosives.[/QUOTE]
Depends what you're trying to kill with the nuclear weapon.
Most strategic nuclear targets are either hardened bunkers (i.e. missile silos) or airfields. Both would be groundburst targets.
[QUOTE=download;48617853]A good quarter of the US nuclear arsenal at the height of the Cold War was 155mm (W48 - 70 to 100 tonnes and its replacement the W82 - 2kt) and 208mm nuclear artillery shells (W33 - 1.2kt and its replacement the W79 - 1 to 12kt).
[/QUOTE]
Its stupid as fuck because the main force is gonna move towards the target after bombardment. Yeah! Cancer!
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;48618912]Its stupid as fuck because the main force is gonna move towards the target after bombardment. Yeah! Cancer![/QUOTE]
No, NATO intended to use nuclear artillery to slow the Soviet advance while they made a delaying retreat giving enough time for European forces to mobilize and US forces arrive from the US.
[QUOTE=download;48619043]No, NATO intended to use nuclear artillery to slow the Soviet advance while they made a delaying retreat giving enough time for European forces to mobilize and US forces arrive from the US.[/QUOTE]
And this?
[video=youtube;ZWSMoE3A5DI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSMoE3A5DI[/video]
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;48619112]And this?
[video=youtube;ZWSMoE3A5DI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSMoE3A5DI[/video][/QUOTE]
I'm not even sure how you think that's relevant.
Not even sure why you're debating it here.
That is footage from testing conducted during the earlier days of nuclear weapons, when the dangers of nuclear radiation and fallout were not fully understood or considered. The test itself was, I believe, an attempt to test the viability of using nuclear weaponry in an assault movement. As one would expect, it was not a particularly nice experience for the troops, who were also dug in during the detonation. Everybody learned rather quickly just how bad nuclear weapons are for people's health, there is a reason why we've been trying to get rid of them for so long.
[QUOTE=99% More Fail;48619257]That is footage from testing conducted during the earlier days of nuclear weapons, when the dangers of nuclear radiation and fallout were not fully understood or considered. The test itself was, I believe, an attempt to test the viability of using nuclear weaponry in an assault movement. As one would expect, it was not a particularly nice experience for the troops, who were also dug in during the detonation. Everybody learned rather quickly just how bad nuclear weapons are for people's health, there is a reason why we've been trying to get rid of them for so long.[/QUOTE]
That's a bullshit myth. Of course someone knew.
How do you think they were building nukes without knowledge of the dangers of radiation? Hell even Currie herself was long dead by the effects of radiation by then.
What really gets me, then, is that they basically knowingly sent a whole bunch of people to either die or end up wishing they were dead, all to confirm something they already knew.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;48619112]And this?
[video=youtube;ZWSMoE3A5DI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSMoE3A5DI[/video][/QUOTE]that was an experiment, not an exercise
NBC gear and radiation-shielded tanks exist for a damn reason you know
Yeah that's the military for you. This must be after Japan and Trinity since it's clearly NOT Trinity which was at White Sands so of course they had more than enough prove of how devastating and dangerous it was.
Granted no long-term experience but it's still stupid.
But maybe it's not that weird considering they sold radioactive toothpaste back then.
[editline]5th September 2015[/editline]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBoD_zRfz_4[/media]
It just makes me glad that Operation Downfall never needed to go ahead. You can debate the atomic weapons in 1945 all you want, and I surely do debate the fact that they were dropped on population centres, but if Operation Downfall had gone ahead it would have been fucking horrifying, apparently by the time of the initial invasion of Kyushu they would have had an estimated between 7 adn 15 Fat-Man type bombs that could be used on a whim to annihilate anything particularly tough in the way of the invasion. I wonder if the troops were actually told about the dangers or if they just went in totally blind.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/dwOGvxe.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE]Glendalough lake frozen over.[/QUOTE]
I don't remember much of my GCSE physics, but I believe that prolonged exposure is the problem. If you're using that toothpaste regularly, and leaving residue on your teeth, sooner or later you are going to hit a dangerous dose.
[QUOTE=99% More Fail;48619331]I don't remember much of my GCSE physics, but I believe that prolonged exposure is the problem. If you're using that toothpaste regularly, and leaving residue on your teeth, sooner or later you are going to hit a dangerous dose.[/QUOTE]
The problem with toothpaste is that you're consuming the stuff. Most radionuclides are heavy metals meaning them accumulate.
[QUOTE=download;48619445]The problem with toothpaste is that you're consuming the stuff. Most radionuclides are heavy metals meaning them accumulate.[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, your thyroid filters that shit out though.
There are legal limitations for exposure (just like there are with any hazardous chemical, heavy metal, etc), so as long as you aren't being exposed in excess of that limit I don't think it's illegal.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;48619483]From what I understand, your thyroid filters that shit out though.
There are legal limitations for exposure (just like there are with any hazardous chemical, heavy metal, etc), so as long as you aren't being exposed in excess of that limit I don't think it's illegal.[/QUOTE]
Thyroid Cancer.
[QUOTE=spoder55;48619312][t]http://i.imgur.com/dwOGvxe.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
wicklow is beautiful
[QUOTE=Mjolnir82991;48614176]Since no one else is answering the question: It's an air burst test of an atom bomb. Detonating a bomb in mid air above a target is often more effective than having it detonate on impact. It's a common practice for air-dropped bombs as well as artillery.[/QUOTE]
The cool part of that video is seeing the shockwave bounce off of the ground and deflect the fireball away from the dirt, keeping neutron activation of soil to a minimum from the hundreds or even thousands of different neutron emitting isotopes that were generated in that single millisecond.
These 'low FoV big thing in the background small person in the foreground' pictures, while technically impressive have become really repetitive to me.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;48622571]These 'low FoV big thing in the background small person in the foreground' pictures, while technically impressive have become really repetitive to me.[/QUOTE]
I was just about to post that but you ninja'd me. They're starting to blur together.
As of [B]February 2015[/B]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Map_of_the_war_in_Donbass.svg/800px-Map_of_the_war_in_Donbass.svg.png[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
