 |
What follows is an archival copy of public information. Content herein is believed to be of historical interest to Delta Green fandom and should remain untouched, as a sign of respect for the original author(s). The article must be removed on request by copyright holders, if any. Please improve the wiki with living documents inspired by the ideas here. |
 |
The following material was imported from the Ice Cave. |
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:27:34 -0400
From: Graeme Price
Stephen wrote:
Anyway he told me that the Russians had developed a back pack nuke, that is an nuclear bomb small enough to fit inside a briefcase or rucksack. More than this, they had built 80 of them prior to the fall of the USSR. However, a recent investigation by General Lebed, while he was still security minister revealed that the Red Army could only find 47 f them. Shortly therafter he was fired from his job.
Ouch! I though that reducing the size of nukes (below about 500lbs) was technically unfeasible. As I recall this was unrelated to the critical mass of plutonium you would need (I'm no physicist and I don't think that the critical mass needed to initiate a nuke is common knowledge), but something to do with radiation sheilding… of course, if you're fanatical enough than little things like tumours, large blisters, no immune system and all your hair falling out might not matter (viz. the final episode of "Edge of Darkness"). I suppose it depends on how big your briefcase is!
I guess part of the story involved the fabled "Red Mercury" which had something to do with making atomic bombs smaller (nice plot line here, as no one has ever proven that Red Mercury exists - although I do remember seeing a documentary on the beeb a couple of years back about a South African arms dealer who claimed to have samples of the stuff shortly before he was assassinated by parties unknown). I did once know how Red Mercury was supposed to work… unfortunately my memory isn't what it used to be.
Terrorist access to nuclear materials is of course a big worry (personally I'm more concerned about biologicals but there you go). However, the technology involved in making an atomic device is reasonably heavy duty (this is dealt with rather nicely in the Tom Clancy novel "The sum of all fears"). The big question is why fabricate a bomb with (e.g) stolen plutonium (getting a warhead off the shelf is another matter) when you could cause at least as much trouble by grinding it up small and dropping it in a major reservoir.
(Fish?)food for thought?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 11:50:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: "G. Wyckoff"
Graeme wrote:
Ouch! I though that reducing the size of nukes (below about 500lbs) was technically unfeasible. As I recall this was unrelated to the critical mass of plutonium you would need (I'm no physicist and I don't think that the critical mass needed to initiate a nuke is common knowledge), but something to do with radiation sheilding… of course, if you're fanatical enough than little things like tumours, large blisters, no immune system and all your hair falling out might not matter (viz. the final episode of "Edge of Darkness"). I suppose it depends on how big your briefcase is!
Okay, I'm going out on a limb here, since my physics is pretty damn rusty, but I thought I remembered that the amount of weapons grade plutonium that you needed for critical mass was a little over 14 pounds. Can anyone confirm or deny this?? Or am I not supposed to know this and some MiB's are gonna be knocking on my door tommorow?
Terrorist access to nuclear materials is of course a big worry (personally I'm more concerned about biologicals but there you go).
Agreed. I am also a heck of a lot more concerned about biologicals. Of course, the last time I had to buy HPLC grade wather (really pure water) from my local Chem Stores person, they had me prove eight ways from Sunday that I was a "certified end-user" for biological "reagents". I'm serious, I had a harder time buying a gallon of water than I ever had buying alcohol from a liquor store.
However, the technology involved in making an atomic device is reasonably heavy duty (this is dealt with rather nicely in the Tom Clancy novel "The sum of all fears"). The big question is why fabricate a bomb with (e.g) stolen plutonium (getting a warhead off the shelf is another matter) when you could cause at least as much trouble by grinding it up small and dropping it in a major reservoir.
Maybe more trouble. You could make it look like the government or a company were involved with the plutonium ending up in a reservoir, further eroding people's trust in government and authority in general. How hard would it be to plant evidence that the plutonium came from some US military source after the fact??
All of this makes great fodder for a DG campaign. Nothing like making people hate or mistrust the government to make your DG agents lives that much more difficult. Nothing like giving that cult a nuke to really make them sweat.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:58:50 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
Aparently the way around the size requirements re the ammount of Plutonium needed was quite easy. I'm sure everyone knows how the Hiroshima bomb worked:
A sphere of uranium / plutonium (can't remember which) surrounded by a spherical network of explosive charges. When the explosives detonate they (providing they are shaped correctly) force the plutonium / uranium in to super criticality and the chain reaction sustains itself.
ie
Bang.
Given the level of technology / explosives development in the 1940s huge (well the bomb was so big it needed a specially converted US bomber) ammounts of explosives and p / u were needed. Given the increase in the effectiveness of explosives, especially plastic explosives, one consequence is that the ammount of p / u needed and the overall size of the bomb comes down. Admittedly these brief /suit case bombs arn't that powerfull about 5 kilotonnes IIRC the programme correctly. But they are only intended as battlefield tactical nukes ie destroy a couple of acres, an airport, marshalling yard or port etc
Of course grind up a pound of uranium and you would theoretically I think have enough to kill everyone on the planet if a method to expose everyone via the air could be created.
Have fun with that guys.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:29:28 +0100 (BST)
From: Stephen Joseph Ellis
All of this makes great fodder for a DG campaign. Nothing like making people hate or mistrust the government to make your DG agents lives that much more difficult. Nothing like giving that cult a nuke to really make them sweat.
I can see it now. A bunch of mythos-virgin Feds in the Department of Energy and State, hear about some backpack nukes on the black market. They investigate, traveling to Russia and then the Far East trying to find out who has got them. The Arms dealers hold an auction for the most desirable piece of terrorist hardware ever. The Feds try to bid up the price. The US treasury prints an extra run of a billion dollars to fund them. However, despite their best efforts and ludicrous offers, it goes to a little known syndicate. The only paper trail leads to a company called New World Incorported headquartered in the US. Covert raids and armed seiges on the corporate headquarters come too late- the bomb has gone underground, funnelled to an extremist religious group who worship it as the embodiment of God. They call it the Hand of Azathoth. Those who oppose them will be smote down by the Hand. The Feds come out in force, forgetting their embarassment over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and abuse everyones rights who might know to which city the bombs going to smite. Will they reach it in time, or will they never even see the bright flash as it explodes in the heart of the Capitol.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:55:14 -0400
From: Graeme Price
The Feds come out in force, forgetting their embarassment over Waco and Ruby Ridge, and abuse everyones rights who might know to which city the bombs going to smite. Will they reach it in time, or will they never even see the bright flash as it explodes in the heart of the Capitol.
Is that before or after said flash burns their retinas out?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:57:11 -0400
From: Graeme Price
I've just done a quick search on "Red Mercury" the alleged key to building little atomic bombs (amongst other things). This was about the only useful thing that came up (out of the economist 5 years ago). Several interesting plot hooks come to mind from this article, but I'll leave all that to people's own deranged imaginations.
Author: Anonymous
Publication: Economist
v327n7812 | 76 | May 22, 1993 | Word Count: 0000474
TI: Fools' mercury
MOSCOW
Oleg Saldykov claims to have succeeded where generations of alchemists had failed. He says his company, Promecologia, based in Yekaterinburg, has developed a technique to synthesise 100kg of red mercury a day. This substance can allegedly be used to make a variety of things: fuses for conventional and nuclear bombs; anti-radar coatings; missile-guidance systems; and bank notes which are impossible to forge. A kilo of this miraculous stuff costs up to $350,000. Mr Saldykov insists that he has a contract to sell 84 tonnes of red mercury over the next three years to an American company called API International. He claims that the deal is worth a cool $24.2 billion.
But two things have gone wrong with the deal. Alexander Rutskoi, Russia's vice-president, found out about it. On April 16th, he made a speech in parliament accusing associates of Boris Yeltsin of illicit dealings in this "extremely valuable raw material." (Yekaterinburg is Mr Yeltsin's home town.)
The second problem is more fundamental. in January, Evgenny Primakov, Russia's chief spy, denied that red mercury existed and claimed that deals involving it "are used by mafia structures as a means of laundering dirty money, including income from the drugs business." America's State Department agrees with him. A cable sent earlier this year to American embassies around the world gave a warning: "Since the late 1970s, there have been at least 25 attempts to sell various quantities of an alleged nuclear material described as 'red mercury' … After careful consideration of the claimed physical properties of the alleged material, it became apparent that 'red mercury' (as a nuclear substance) does not exist."
Those who want to believe in the existence of red mercury are unabashed. Pravda, the leading anti-Yeltsin newspaper in Moscow, has printed excerpts of what it claims is a memo from Mr Primakov, dated March 21st 1992, in which the spook outlined the properties of red mercury, or mercuric salt of antimonous acid as it is also known, in detail. The previous month, Mr Yeltsin signed a secret decree giving Promecologia the right to export red mercury, an order which was rescinded on March 20th 1993. Pravda claims that red mercury was first synthesised in 1968 and has been smuggled out of Russia for many years.
It seems that some unwise governments, desperate to build their own atom bombs, have been willing to trust the dealers. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have found documents mentioning red mercury during their searches in Baghdad. That raises the alarming prospect that red mercury may actually be a codename for real substances that are needed to make nuclear bombs. A more devious theory is that the whole red-mercury affair is simply a fantasy dreamt up to make Mr Rutskoi look foolish. That would certainly suit Mr Yeltsin, who is anxious to be rid of his vice-president.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 00:34:32 +0200
From: "Florian Hanke"
Wow! This topic seems to have kicked off an avalanche.. So I'd like to say something about it, if you're not interested just read the scenario ideas below… Ok, first about the little nukes:
Graeme wrote:
Okay, I'm going out on a limb here, since my physics is pretty damn rusty, but I thought I remembered that the amount of weapons grade plutonium that you needed for critical mass was a little over 14 pounds. Can anyone confirm or deny this??
That's about right, a bit more I think - in the Bomb which was dropped over Hiroshima "Little Boy" there was about 15 kg of Uranium 235, split into 2 halves. At the impact, an explosive propellant pushed the two halves together to achieve the critical mass, emitting enough Neutrons to start an uncontrolled chain reaction. Now with the little nukes, I think terrorists, would never use such a bomb. They're not crazy - for what they want to achieve, a conventional bomb is sufficient enough. But maybe in your DG campaign they can be just a little crazy ;)
The reason that the bombs are about at least as 500lbs heavy, is that the military wants adequate (I don't know if this word sounds a bit ironically) firepower and to get such a bomb working you need a container, lots of electronics, an explosive propellant, some U-239, a fuse control, etc…etc… but maybe a small group equipped with transporters might be able to bring it somewhere.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:27:58 -0400
From: Steven Kaye
There's also an article on the mysterious "red mercury" on the Fortean Times web site (http://www.forteantimes.com). Incidentally, FT is a great source for adventure seeds - I remember an article suggesting a war between the Sokka Gakkai (sp?) and the Aum Shirikyo, with Tesla weapons and Allied protection of members of Unit 731 thrown in for good measure.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:48:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Petherick
Ouch! I though that reducing the size of nukes (below about 500lbs) was technically unfeasible. As I recall this was unrelated to the critical mass of plutonium you would need (I'm no physicist and I don't think that the critical mass needed to initiate a nuke is common knowledge), but something to do with radiation sheilding… of course, if you're fanatical enough than little things like tumours, large blisters, no immune system and all your hair falling out might not matter (viz. the final episode of "Edge of Darkness"). I suppose it depends on how big your briefcase is!
"Backpack" may be a misnomer. The Soviets and the United States both supposedly developed small nuclear weapons that were termed "man portable". They'd probably have a gross weight comparable to an extremely heavy field pack. Or they may have been modular and capable of being easily assembled.
As for shielding, none is needed for a nuclear weapon to protect against the radiation from the fissile material. Enriched uranium and plutonium are both alpha emitters, and alpha particles are of negligible concern (as long as the radioactive material remains outside your body). Certainly, the outer shell of a device or even the conventional explosives are capable of absorbing any alpha or beta radiation. There are, of course, decay products within the material which are gamma emitters but the amount of radiation from these isotopes is pretty minor (at or near environmental background).
The NEST teams apparently (or would) detect missing or terrorist nuclear weapons using some kind of radiation detector, probably one tuned and highly specific for the gamma wavelength(s) produced by these decay products.
There may be shielding material inside the device but it's purpose is to focus, contain or otherwise manipulate the gamma or X-rays produced during the fission reaction in order to trigger a fusion reaction. And this shielding material is certainly not lead.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 20:31:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Juneau
Actually, both the US and Ivan made Atomic Demolition Munitions (US term - not sure of the Russian phrase), which are man-portable to some extent. (You have to be pretty beefy to haul one around.) Back in fifty-something, the Army fired off one 8-inch tactical atomic in Nevada - there was an article in some historical-war mag within the past two-three years. ("8-inch" as in 8-inch artillery piece. Looked prettty cool, and I think I have a binary of the shot.)
In John McPhee's THE CURVE OF BINDING ENERGY, Dr. Theodore Taylor goes into the sorry state of US atomic-power security, and how little it really takes. (He did a fractional-kiloton device once, that used significantly less than 5 kilos of plutonium, IIRC. I'd have to dig that reference out. I'll also note that fractional-kiloton tests were done in Missouri <!> according to one listing of tests. [Might be in the big nuke catalog online - forget where, but it's got a lot of test-info.])
ADM is an important part of PAYBACK, by JC Pollock. (Fiction) In with the specforce-vets-vs.-commie/terrorist-menace is a pile of info, which may have some basis in reality. (ADM is also one of the MOS offerings when I joined the Army. <G> Souveniers?)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Man in Black
Okay, I'm going out on a limb here, since my physics is pretty damn rusty, but I thought I remembered that the amount of weapons grade plutonium that you needed for critical mass was a little over 14 pounds. Can anyone confirm or deny this?? Or am I not supposed to know this and some MiB's are gonna be knocking on my door tommorow?
Soon… very soon…
Anyhow, The USA has Alpha Charges, which are about 10kt yield nukes that weigh about 80 lbs. Fits in a big suitcase. Not too sure about Russian micro-nukes. These devices are bound to be less reliable than macro-nukes.
From: Michael
And in the Red Army, when they fire you, they have a special squad for the task! :)
As I say, I didnt see the programme so I cant vouch for its accuracy, but even the possibility that terrorists or fanatics have a small, and undetectable nuke worries me. Especially with the IRA feeling desperate and marginalised in N.Ireland.
I haven't found any information yet on Russian Atomic Demolition Munitions, but I'm still looking. Meanwhile, here's something I found on US ADMs, to give you some idea of the tech the military admits to having…
The US Army's MADM (Medium Atomic Demolition Munition) was an adaption of the W-45 warhead developed for the Bullpup missile. It had three yields in the 1-15 KT range, adjustable by varying the deuterium-tritium mixture in the fissile core. The Bullpup warhead weighed about 150 lbs, but the MADM's weight was given as slightly under 350 lbs (including the H-815 container (42.5 inches long, 24.5 inches diameter, watertight to permit underwater placement), warhead, firing cable, coding/decoding unit, and firing set). Its Permissive Action Link is described as a "mechanical combination lock". It could be time-fuzed or command detonated. 350 were built between January 1962 and June 1966, and all were retired by the end of 1984. The weapon reportedly had some reliability problems in service. A bit on the bulky side, but the RFP was for a weapon which could be placed by a six-man team…
Somewhat smaller was the Army's M-159 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition), with a choice of yields in the range of 10T to 1KT, and a weight of about 150 lbs (59 lbs of which is the W-54 warhead itself). It uses a mechanical combination lock PAL, and is time-fused. It can be emplaced by a two-person team. Between August 1964 and June 1968, approximately 260 SADMs were manufactured. While some of the early marks have been retired, about 200 remain in service.
Keep in mind that the above two weapons were built with 1960s tech…
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:32:19 EDT
From: Michael Layne
Well, actually, that was the _Nagasaki_ bomb — the MK-III, codenamed "Fat Man"! It used a sphere of plutonium imploded by "a centrally-directed spherical radial shock wave" into a supercritical state. Doing so makes use of what I have heard termed "explosive lenses" (of Composition B, in "Fat Man"). (IIRC, the configuration of these was part of the _actual_ "Secret of the Atomic Bomb" that the Rosenbergs gave to the Russians! You can't classify physics (at least not long-term, especially after presenting public proof that "It Can Be Done"!), but the AEC can and did classify things such as the manner in which the explosives implode the hollow sphere of plutonium into a supercritical mass…) It was 11 feet long, 5 feet in diameter, and weighed 10,000 lbs. Approximately half its weight was HE to detonate the nuclear charge. (Postwar developments have reduced the HE requirement to 15-40 lbs.)
The Hiroshima bomb — MK-I, codenamed "Little Boy" — was a "gun-assembly" detonation system. Basically, you had two somewhat subcritical masses of fissionable material (U-235 in the case of "Little Boy", the Hiroshima bomb), one smaller than the other. To detonate, you set off an explosive charge which drives the smaller chunk of U-235 down a tube (a converted smoothbore 3-inch howitzer barrel in "Little Boy") into a corresponding hole in the larger one, forming a supercritical mass and a nice loud explosion. "Little Boy" weighed 8,900 lbs (including a steel casing 6 inches thick!), and measured 126 inches long and 28 inches in diameter.
The "Trinity" shot of 15 July 1945 at Alamagordo, NM, was a test of the implosion detonation system. (Some of the Manhattan Project scientists had questions about its efficiency; they did not bother testing the gun-assembly detonation system, feeling it was so simple it could not malfunction!) The "Trinity gadget", as it was referred to, was a sphere containing 5,000 lbs of HE, and 14 lbs of plutonium and "tuballoy" tamper.
(My info is from "US Nuclear Weapons", by Chuck Hansen (Aerofax, 1988), ISBN 0-517-56740-7. Fascinating book!)
Given the level of technology / explosives development in the 1940s huge (well the bomb was so big it needed a specially converted US bomber) ammounts of explosives and p / u were needed. Given the increase in the effectiveness of explosives, especially plastic explosives, one consequence is that the ammount of p / u needed and the overall size of the bomb comes down.
The original WWII A-bombs used TNT and Composition B (60/40 RDX/TNT). Later explosives included HMX (cyclotetramethylenetetranitrate, or desensitized Torpex), and Octol (70/30 HMX/TNT). In the late 50s-early 60s,more powerful triggering explosives — DATB (diaminotrinitrobenzene) and TATB (triaminotrinitrobenzene) were introduced.
(You may need your team members to run a Sanity check when the DG-Friendly nuclear weapons expert from Army Ordnance starts nonchalantly rattling off the above chemical names….):)
Admittedly these brief / suit case bombs arn't that powerfull about 5 kilotonnes IIRC the programme correctly. But they are only intended as battlefield tactical nukes ie destroy a couple of acres, an airport, marshalling yard or port etc.
Precisely the uses the US Army anticipated for its Atomic Demolition Munitions. While it originally was thinking of using them to deny the enemy assets and transportation routes in event of a withdrawl, it's only a small step from that to sending a special warfare team to deny the enemy assets he already has!
Of course grind up a pound of uranium and you would theoretically I think have enough to kill everyone on the planet if a method to expose everyone via the air could be created.
Which, luckily, is slightly harder than it sounds! (I wonder what would get you first, heavy metal poisoning or radioactivity?
Have fun with that guys.
Don't worry! We will…
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:21:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: "G. Wyckoff"
Soon… very soon…
Just give me far warning so I can bribe you with Chicago Deep Dish Pizza, local microbrew, and Italian beef sandwiches.
Anyhow, The USA has Alpha Charges, which are about 10kt yield nukes that weigh about 80 lbs. Fits in a big suitcase. Not too sure about Russian micro-nukes. These devices are bound to be less reliable than macro-nukes.
Egads. That's a nice bang for the buck. So, aside from the obvious portability issues about small nukes, why in the world would any Army actuall make semi-portable "luggable?" nuclear sevices?? What's the application these things were designed for??
Also, a little piece of history: in the museum at West Point (U.S. Military Academy in upstate New York), there is (or was, it's been a while) a little piece about how the U.S. Army (back in the late 40's or very early 50's) was trying to develop (at least in concept) man-portable "hand grenade" nukes. This whole thing was so ludicrous that I couldn't believe that they would admit to having tried this or even given it any thought. Still, to this day, the image of some grunt pulling the pin on a hand grenade, counting to three, and trying to throw it far enough to not be irradiated or killed outright haunts me no end.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 11:22:13 -0400
From: Graeme Price
Still, to this day, the image of some grunt pulling the pin on a hand grenade, counting to three, and trying to throw it far enough to not be irradiated or killed outright haunts me no end.
Remind me of a quote from "Mad Gav" in the cartoon strip "the Travellers" which used to be in White Dwarf back in the 80's (whilst they still published stuff from non-GW systems and before it went "spiky"). Viz:
"Great weapon the atomic hand grendae. Now all they need is someone who can throw it 25 miles!"
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:05:50 +0200
From: "Florian Hanke"
Egads. That's a nice bang for the buck. So, aside from the obvious portability issues about small nukes, why in the world would any Army actuall make semi-portable "luggable?" nuclear devices?? What's the application these things were designed for??
I think, that they would have been used in non-apocalyptic conflicts to destroy underground installations, namely factories…
Still, to this day, the image of some grunt pulling the pin on a hand grenade, counting to three, and trying to throw it far enough to not be irradiated or killed outright haunts me no end.
Well, that's typical about every military, they first think about concepts and then about how and if they could produce and use it…Another good example are the studies about Lasertanks(!) in the 60s. They even wanted to use LSD as a Weapon in the Vietnam war, and tried it on willing subjects (own soldiers). Same with the british army during WWI, they tried the effects of toxins on volunteers. What happened to these people - especially the LSD-ones? Maybe stuff for a good scenario?
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:57:31 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
Interesting discussion.
Has anyone mentioned the "Davy Crocket" tactical nuclear rocket from the early Viet Nam era? It was an early attempt at a small field nuclear divice. Since the blast radius was larger than the range, finding someone dumb enough to fire one would have been a problem though.
Letting one of your investigators have one and seeing if they check the specs could be fun!
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:45:09 +0900
From: "David Farnell"
The only paper trail leads to a company called New World Incorported headquartered in the US.
Hell, NWI could afford to build their own bomb. And I doubt they'd let any paper trail to lead back to them. I'd like to see more info about these creeps, BTW. There's a little in _At Your Door_—any other modern stuff? Laura of "L Cell" is kind of obsessed with taking them down. I'm trying to keep her from doing anything stupid.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 14:44:51 +0900
From: "David Farnell"
Another good example are the studies about Lasertanks(!) in the 60s. They even wanted to use LSD as a Weapon in the Vietnam war, and tried it on willing subjects (own soldiers). Same with the british army during WWI, they tried the effects of toxins on volunteers. What happened to these people - especially the LSD-ones? Maybe stuff for a good scenario?
Lasertanks? Did they really build any?
Check out _Jacob's Ladder_ for nice stuff on post-Vietnam-drug-testbunny-syndrome. Excellent, creepy movie. And there was an X-Files episode about a guy who'd been operated on so that he could never sleep, but could project his dreams. That was the first episode with Ratboy, I think.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:25:52 +0200
From: Jesper_J
Hi All
I don't know if you have touched on this topic in the Little Nukes discussion? Some of my friends (who are Ph.D. in Physics) told me that the problem with a nuclear weapon is to make a explosion bringing the Plutonium/Uranium together. It is true that the principle of making a nuclear bomb is simple, just add together enough P/U and a chainreaction will acure. The problem is that in order to "add the stuff together" you need a very precise and controlled explosion for it to work. Acoording to my friends this is very difficult. So if a terrorist group had then material to make a bomb, they would still need some blueprints in order to make the bomb.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:39:08 +0200
From: "Florian Hanke"
Lasertanks? Did they really build any?
(Un-) fortunately they stopped the project. The reason was: To penetrate steel of 1/2 inch thickness from about 1km you need the energy output of a nuclear power plant and direct the beam for about 3 seconds on the same spot.
But laser can still be used as a weapon (especially by terrorists) for blinding. For that you need just a car battery - the only countermeasures against this are to give, for example, soldiers eyepatches so that one eye remains operational - pretty sarcastic, huh?
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:16:47 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
Some of my friends (who are Ph.D. in Physics) told me that
the(snip) problem with a nuclear weapon is to "add the stuff together" you need a very precise and controlled explosion for it to work. Acoording to my friends this is very difficult.
While this is technically true, as I understand it, making a critical , or near critical, mass without the density required for an actual explosion is much easier and VERY messy.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 20:46:19 EDT
From: Michael Layne
But laser can still be used as a weapon (especially by terrorists) for blinding. For that you need just a car battery - the only countermeasures against this are to give, for example, soldiers eyepatches so that one eye remains operational - pretty sarcastic, huh?
The US military may have already gotten around to issuing anti-laser eye protection (protective goggles) to troops who may be exposed to lasers (that includes range-finders, target designators, and the like). Eye protection is likely to be part of the soldier's standard kit on future high-tech battlefields.
Several years ago, the USAF was testing some airplane windows which would turn opaque instantly if exposed to a bright flash (such as that of a nuclear explosion). I've seen photos (in Aviation Week) of these fitted to a B-1B, but I don't know if they were officially adopted, or strategic bombers still use the old flash curtains!
The closest thing to a laser tank I've seen a photo of was a gas-dynamic laser vehicle for AA defense. It was based on an LVTP-7 (now AAVP-7) chassis (a USMC Amtrac), and the laser, generators, etc. took up the entire hold of the vehicle. It never went into service, and even the photo may have just been a mockup…
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:26:57 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
Messy in what way?
Hello All,
Well it won't go bang but it will go critical and give off more dangerous radiation than when it is sub-critical. During the Manhattan project in Los Alamos, a scientist, (can't remember his name if you want the full facts read "Genius", by James Gleick an autobiography of Richard Feynman), was putting bits of uranium I think together into a frame when he slipped forcing two sub-critical bits togeather, instant critical but not super-critical, (BANG), mass he died a few weeks later.
On the subject of Mr Feynman, there's someone who could be a DG friendly. One of his favourite stories was how he cracked the safes containing the secrets of the atomic bomb, its all in the book. All he did was instead of assuming like most people that a safe's combination was exact and precise, he worked in error ranges. Therefore if the combination, was 25-25-25 the combinations 24-24-24 and 26-26-26 would work just as well because of mechanical slippage.
He also assumed that people would use dates as combinations which reduced hugely the number of combinations possible. as he said all you needed was one or two inexplicable successes and everyone thinks you are a safecracker he used to carry some tools to make it look as if he was really trying hard where as all he was doing was trying a couple of hundred combinations at most.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 11:41:12 +0200
From: "Florian Hanke"
The US military may have already gotten around to issuing anti-laser eye protection (protective goggles) to troops who may be exposed to lasers (that includes range-finders, target designators, and the like). Eye protection is likely to be part of the soldier's standard kit on future high-tech battlefields.
Of course, eye protection is very important - but with lasers it's very hard to protect the eyes efficient. That's mainly because different lasers cover all visible electromagnetic wavelengths (light) and beyond… So if you go and try shield the eye from every possible laser, the soldiers won't be able to see! If not, they will very likely be blinded.Very nasty, these lasers!
In the end, the most efficient and cheap protection is to patch one eye…
Another possibility of protection would be that troops are given laser detectors, which activate the eye protection. Imagine this in warfilms: It's really quiet - suddenly: "Lasers! Hit the dirt!, but still -very quiet - some sort of paranoid soldiers…
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 07:17:52 -0700
From: Josh Shaw
Oh, I don't know; giving a character, possibly wounded or on the point of insanity, a chance to save the world at the mere cost of their own life sounds like fairly player friendly game mastering to me and certainly gives one a way to end the scenario with a bang. And it conveniently gets rid of all the evidence as well.
I was going to say that *I'd* never be that nice to my players but then I thought…….so what happens if "one little shock" puts the character carrying the Davy Crocket over the edge a little bit prematurely. Would certainly give the other players a chance for some intense role-playing…….
Not for my Fargo campaign I think, but down the line.
Added bonus; several of my players are weapons nuts and like big bang bangs. However, they've learned that when I let them have their toys it means they're *really* gonna need them. With any luck, if I gave them a nuke early in the scenario I could send the *players* running screaming around the room.
Which is of course what I *really* GM for………(heh heh heh)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:55:24 +0900
From: Jay and Mikiko Noyes
Messy in what way?
Weeell, let's just say that detergent and hot water aren't going to do a thing for the stain.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 08:11:39 -0700
From: Josh Shaw
But laser can still be used as a weapon (especially by terrorists) for blinding. For that you need just a car battery - the only countermeasures against this are to give, for example, soldiers eyepatches so that one eye remains operational - pretty sarcastic, huh?
Recall that the guys were working on a "Non-Lethal" battlefield/Anti-Terrorist weapon, sort of an area-effect laser strobe , lotsa beams all around really fast. Blinds (permanently?) anyone caught looking in its direction.
Wonder what ever happened to that project and what they did with the prototypes when they were finished.
It's amazing what an agent in say the DOD Inspector General's Office might be able to turn up in some old warehouse somewhere.
"Hey John, what's this……It looks like a big gold chest with angels on top of it……."
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 14:25:28 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
Messy in what way?
OK. First of all, I am not a physicist. Any physicists out there please feel free to correct me. My info is based on what I've read during the late '70s and what a few professors told me then.
As I understand it a badly built nuclear bomb that failed to explode due to insufficient compression of the fissionables would behave much like the meltdown of a totally unshielded nuclear reactor. It would proguce unbelievable amounts of fast neutrons and gamma radiation…oh yes, and lots of heat. Fallout of a sort too as the white hoe fissionables caused the vaporization of the now-irradiated materials with which the fissionables came in contact. There are other possibilities depending on the exact concentration of fissionables.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 19:01:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Juneau
On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Phil A Posehn wrote:
As I understand it a badly built nuclear bomb that failed to explode due to insufficient compression of the fissionables would behave much like the meltdown of a totally unshielded nuclear reactor. It would proguce unbelievable amounts of fast neutrons and gamma radiation…oh yes, and lots of heat. Fallout of a sort too as the white hoe fissionables caused the vaporization of the now-irradiated materials with which the fissionables came in contact. There are other possibilities depending on the exact concentration of fissionables.
Sounds about right; my source was fiction - a story in ANALOG from the early '80s, where a group of militia-types had stolen a load of used nuclear-fuel rods, and were grinding them up into powder. (The idea was to spread the dust around and contaminate the city.) IIRC, they croaked due to getting a critical mass without *being* critical, as it were, and were rather glowing in their expiration…
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 01:52:10 -0500
From: Sean Whittaker
Therefore if the combination, was 25-25-25 the combinations 24-24-24 and 26-26-26 would work just as well because of mechanical slippage. He also assumed that people would use dates as combinations which reduced hugely the number of combinations possible. as he said all you needed was one or two inexplicable successes and everyone thinks you are a safecracker he used to carry some tools to make it look as if he was really trying hard where as all he was doing was trying a couple of hundred combinations at most.
The other thing Mr. Feynman knew was the manufacture default setting for the company producing the safes. He theorized that most people are lazy, and will not want to hassle with resetting the default. He was right
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:56:01 +0200
From: Jesper
As I understand it a badly built nuclear bomb that failed to explode due to insufficient compression of the fissionables would behave much like the meltdown of a totally unshielded nuclear reactor. It would proguce unbelievable amounts of fast neutrons and gamma radiation…oh yes, and lots of heat. Fallout of a sort too as the white hoe fissionables caused the vaporization of the now-irradiated materials with which the fissionables came in contact. There are other possibilities depending on the exact concentration of fissionables.
So it would be messy as an environment (pollution) bomb, not like an explosive bomb?
It would still me a good terrorist weapon, but a nuclearbomb would of course have a much more scary effect, and thats after all what most terrorist seek to create.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 19:07:33 +0900
From: "David Farnell"
Recall that the guys were working on a "Non-Lethal" battlefield/Anti-Terrorist weapon, sort of an area-effect laser strobe , lotsa beams all around really fast. Blinds (permanently?) anyone caught looking in its direction. Wonder what ever happened to that project and what they did with the prototypes when they were finished.
I think the UN has voted on/is planning to vote on a ban against blinding lasers. Don't know if they'll distinguish between permanent blinding and "dazzling" or temporary blinding. Personally, I think the dazzling effect could be very useful.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:48:53 +0100
From: Nick
So it would be messy as an environment (pollution) bomb, not like an explosive bomb? It would still me a good terrorist weapon, but a nuclearbomb would of course have a much more scary effect, and thats after all what most terrorist seek to create.
I seem to remember, somewhere in the murky mists of time, reading a book in which a nuclear bomb 'fizzled', but the geological nature of the region (it was up in Denver somewhere; something to do with the rocks reflecting the radiation) made it look like a full-blown nuclear explosien from satellite. Ergo, the terrorists responsible nearly started WWIII anyway.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:07:17 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
I seem to remember, somewhere in the murky mists of time, reading a book in which a nuclear bomb 'fizzled',
Its from the Tom Clancy novel "The Sum of All Fears" basically middle eastern terrorists find a downed fighter bomber from Israel which was carrying a nuclear weapon. IIRC according to the book the bomb they created fizzeled, (didn't convert its matter into energy e=mc2), because of tritium contamination but it looked to the satellites which measured the flash, much greater, because of the snow in the area flashing into steam and reflecting some of the blast and it also had something to do with the tarmac in the car park where it went of I think. Anyway thats all from the top of my head.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:41:45 +0100
From: Nick
Its from the Tom Clancy novel "The Sum of All Fears"
That's the one
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan P Keim
Someone made a reference to the lovely neutron bomb. I remember hearing vague stories about it doing quite a number on life, but leaving all the inanimate spoils of war just fine and ripe for the taking. Is this true?
Anyone care to share just what these things do?
Thanks in advance,
Munch, who really does play with that laser pointer too much and should probably stop before he hurts himself or others…
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 15:49:13 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
Someone made a reference to the lovely neutron bomb. I remember hearing vague stories about it doing quite a number on life, but leaving all the inanimate spoils of war just fine and ripe for the taking. Is this true? Anyone care to share just what these things do?
As far as I understand them Neutron bombs will kill every living thing inside their radius of effect. Now what I think happens is that instead of your classic A-bomb, (matter converted to energy in the forms of the explosion / sound / light), the matter is just converted to radiation. IE I think a neutron bomb just takes the matter and excites it to an energy level where it gives off radiation which is lethal to organic life, not to an energy level, (as in a classic A-bomb), where it gives off the other effects, (sound / light etc),
(Does anyone know if with a neutron bomb there is actually a physical explosion or just a reaction emitting radiation?),
Now how this is done I don't know, I remember reading a novel where Chicago was Neutron Bombed and it killed every living thing there, however one interesting fact is that it is not continually lethal so once the level of radiation has dropped to background the area neutron bombed is perfectly safe, and filled with corpses. This would prevent interesting challenges to anyone moving back into the city what do you do exactly with 6-7 million dead people, (guessing Chicago's population), not to mention cats and dogs and other pets?
The scavenger problem would be huge animal migrating inwards to feed off the corpses.
Now an intersting scenario could be constructed around a neutron bombing, Ghouls migrating into the city after the bombing, hell there's enough food after all;-)
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 08:36:56 -0400
From: "R. Menzi"
Someone made a reference to the lovely neutron bomb. I remember hearing vague stories about it doing quite a number on life, but leaving all the inanimate spoils of war just fine and ripe for the taking. Is this true? Anyone care to share just what these things do? Thanks in advance, «<
Like a brick in a sock, it kills the people, but leaves the buildings standing. I don't know the mechanism for it, but does it really matter, everyone in the area is dead, but you can move into the homes. This makes me ask how small they can be made, and if an NYC landlord find a way to kill off his rent controlled tenants and bring the units up to market value.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 11:56:40 -0400
From: Graeme Price
Other guys (can't say who originally: Servitor problems again!) wrote:
Like a brick in a sock, it kills the people, but leaves the buildings standing. I don't know the mechanism for it, but does it really matter, everyone in the area is dead, but you can move into the homes. This makes me ask how small they can be made, and if an NYC landlord find a way to kill off his rent controlled tenants and bring the units up to market value.
As I recall (which possibly isn't very well), with neutron bombs there is a jacket of material (tritium I guess, as it is basically hydrogen with a couple of extra neutrons) around the primary thermonuclear device which undergoes fusion when the primary device blows. One of the by products of this fusion process is gamma radiation which goes through concrete like a knife through butter and irradiates the people/animals/plants and generally causes the unpleasant nastiness.
The problem (as with all nukes) is that there will be fall out from the primary, which will make the area uninhabitable for a time. Fallout can be minimised by fusing the device so it airbursts (fallout is basically the cloud dirt sucked up in a mushroom cloud, mixed with the highly radioactive bomb fragments). It is possible to convert a "normal" A-bomb into something much dirtier by putting a jacket of something which has a long half life (cobalt for example) around the primary and fusing it for ground burst. This mixes in the long half life component with the fallout and makes the surrounding area uninhabitable for, say, a few thousand years. Again, check out the opening chapters of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" (handy reference for keepers interested in nukes), in which the retreating Israeli army are on the verge of using a cobalt jacketed nuke to deny territory to the advancing Arab forces. Not nice.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:54:10 -0700
From: Christian Conkle
I'm no nuclear physicist or weapons expert, but I was under the impression that the Neutron bomb is basically a small atomic bomb whose explosion creates a great deal of leathal radiation. The explosion is relatively small, but everyone for miles and miles and miles dies of radiation burns, loss of limbs and eyes, or worse.
BAKOOM!
"Did you hear somethi- GACK!" (flump).
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 12:25:41 -0500
From: cimjindy
Now an intersting scenario could be constructed around a neutron bombing, Ghouls migrating into the city after the bombing, hell there's enough food after all;-)
Heh, that would sure be a perfect scheme for a certain pack of renegade crack using Ghouls, who fester in the slums and sewers of NYC..Scene One: Investigators are put on the case of a basic robbery. They discover a small atomic device has been stolen.. DG contacts them. DG agent is planted in PC's party. Ties to the Cult Of Transcendence are found (wiping out the worlds population is #1 on their list. Is it hard to imagine them having a neutron bomb lying around, or locked in one of their bank vaults?). Investigation is taken to the slums of NYC, where the Old Order of Ghouls warn of the imminent disaster (fun scene, investigators first contact with the mythos:). DG calls in some of the bigger guns, possibly a friendly swat team (?) which has gone on several DG ops. Investigators and co decend into the sewers.. Small fire fights insue, hit and run tactics are used by the renegade ghouls. After losing nearly 50% of the team, the agents fight their way into the ghouls lair (having been givin a map by the Old Order Ghouls earlier[?]). Sanity Ripping [TM] ending ensues, with either the investigators winning in the end, or reducing NYC's population to sludge.
Yikes. I haven't done any thing like that for sometime. Could I be over my writers block? :)
Some parts still need to be ironed out. Esp. the Cult of Trancendence ties, and some explanation as to how the ghouls hijacked such a haul (you'd think the CoT would have some pretty wicked security systems installed, ehh?)
Any comments/feedback is welcome. As always.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 20:56:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Juneau
I seem to remember, somewhere in the murky mists of time, reading a book in which a nuclear bomb 'fizzled', but the geological nature of the region (it was up in Denver somewhere; something to do with the rocks reflecting the radiation) made it look like a full-blown nuclear explosien from satellite. Ergo, the terrorists responsible nearly started WWIII anyway.
THE SUM OF ALL FEARS, by Tom Clancy. Thermal pulse of the weapon reflected off the snow'n'ice (it being winter) and the satellite viewing the nuke-flash thought that the flash heralded a *much* larger weapon. <shrug> Seems doable, I guess.
The book I liked better was nonfiction, I forget the title, but dealt with how much "neat stuff" was floating around out there; *much* detail about the Pakistani nuke-program, the South African detonation, how Brazil and (I think) Argentina were trying to bootstrap their way into the Club… detailed more on nukes than chemical/biological weapons, but still interesting. (I should see if I can find a copy for myself; I'd checked it out of the Great Falls Public Library a while ago, thus the disremembrance of the title. <sigh> IIRC, the same authour wrote DEEP BLACK, about the high-altitude and satellite surveillance programs…)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 21:29:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Juneau
As I recall (which possibly isn't very well), with neutron bombs there is a jacket of material (tritium I guess, as it is basically hydrogen with a couple of extra neutrons) around the primary thermonuclear device which undergoes fusion when the primary device blows. One of the by products of this fusion process is gamma radiation which goes through concrete like a knife through butter and irradiates the people/animals/plants and generally causes the unpleasant nastiness.
It's not all that publicised, but I'm certain that the general details can be found in scientific publications, or on the Web. Can't really be tritium, though, because the idea of the neutron bomb is *less* breakage. (IIRC, such a weapon, by that name <!>, was theorised in the late '50s/early '60s. Popped up in some book I read the other day, at least. <G>) Once you've pumped it to a full-on fusion reaction, it's safe to say you're going to have massive damage. (Note that early H-bomb tests produced *far* more megatonnage than design-estimated; the "Mike" bomb was expected to do a few thousand kilotons - a few megatons. It did ten megatons, and scared Norris Bradbury, the Los Alamos director, to the point that he was thinking of having the Eniwetok crew conceal what happened from the New Mexico bunch.)
As detailed somewhat in SUM OF ALL FEARS, and more specifically in FOOTFALL (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle), it's possible to direct and use the radiation from the blast. In FOOTFALL (and some non-fiction I've read) the idea is to use a nuke to pump an x-ray laser… essentially, redirecting and laseing the output. (I'm not really up on the theory, but again, I bet it can be found online. <G>) Something similar is probably what an N-bomb does - excessive radiation pumped out, in such a manner to cook from the inside out. (Swanson's Russian Tanker Suprise! Coming to the Fulda Gap nearest you…)
The problem (as with all nukes) is that there will be fall out from the primary, which will make the area uninhabitable for a time. Fallout can be minimised by fusing the device so it airbursts (fallout is basically the cloud dirt sucked up in a mushroom cloud, mixed with the highly radioactive bomb fragments). It is possible to convert a "normal" A-bomb into something much dirtier by putting a jacket of something which has a long half life (cobalt for example) around the primary and fusing it for ground burst. This mixes in the long half life component with the fallout and makes the surrounding area uninhabitable for, say, a few thousand years. Again, check out the opening chapters of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" (handy reference for keepers interested in nukes), in which the retreating Israeli army are on the verge of using a cobalt jacketed nuke to deny territory to the advancing Arab forces. Not nice.
If you've watched DOCTOR STRANGELOVE, you'll see the true Fun Guy benefits of cobalt-jacketed weapons. (IE, kill all them pesky Soft Ones..) 'course, that's a different objective from cleaning out the cockroaches (which even nukes won't do, without breakage <sigh>). My speculation is the neutron bomb was a small-yield device, within a good thick blanket of "boosting" material or else something focussing what radiation there was. (Atomic claymores, anyone?)
I've got a small program for the Amiga, which calculates various nuke-data based on yeild, distance from detonation, and altitude (IIRC). I *think* it noted that the actual high-gamma wavefront was rather short-range - somewhat less than the thermal pulse. (I'm probably wrong, tho.) You'd want gamma, for sure, but not so much as to permanently irradiate your loot. Not sure how to figure "volume" vs. "persistance", as it were - "loud" enough to cook everything but without lasting a few thousand years. Hmmm. I don't think they gave us this info in the FEMA classes I took in the Civil Air Patrol… <heheheh>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:24:17 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
As detailed somewhat in SUM OF ALL FEARS, and more specifically in FOOTFALL (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle), it's possible to direct and use the radiation from the blast. In FOOTFALL (and some non-fiction I've read) the idea is to use a nuke to pump an x-ray laser… essentially, redirecting and laseing the output. (I'm not really up on the theory, but again, I bet it can be found online. <G>)
Your referance to "Footfall" reminds me…Remember project Orion and all of Freeman Dyson's other strange proposals for the peacetime use of nukes??
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 00:17:45 PDT
From: "James Miller"
As detailed somewhat in SUM OF ALL FEARS, and more specifically in FOOTFALL (Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle), it's possible to direct and use the radiation from the blast. In FOOTFALL (and some non-fiction I've read) the idea is to use a nuke to pump an x-ray laser… essentially, redirecting and laseing the output. (I'm not really up on the theory, but again, I bet it can be found online. <G>)
I don't know that much about the theory, but it would probably be a Gamma ray laser. My understanding, what little I have, is that nukes would emit gamma radiation. My thought is what would happen if Rancho Saco was hit with a nuke. Would the fallout increase or do you risk The China Syndrome. That should keep the city of Sac up all night.
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 06:16:07 -0500
From: Laurie Gerholz
The following excerpt was taken from Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapons FAQ.
NWFAQ can be found in the High Energy Weapons Archive (an excellent source of information on nuclear weapons):
4.3.2 Neutron Bombs ("Enhanced Radiation Weapons")
The design objective of the tactical neutron bombs developed in the 1960s and 70s was to create a low-yield, compact weapon that produced a lethal burst of neutrons. These neutrons can penetrate steel armor with relative ease, enabling the weapons to be effective against tanks and other armored vehicles which are otherwise highly resistant to the effects of nuclear weapons. A flux of several thousand rems were desired so that incapacitation of armored crews would be relatively rapid, with in several hours to a couple of days at most. In this exposure range death is inevitable. To minimize the effects of collateral damage, the effect of thermal radiation and blast outside the neutron kill radius, it was also very desirable to minimize the energy released in forms other than the neutron flux.