Divine strake bomb
- Thread starter Amy
- Start date
offroaddave
It's just one term!
- Location
- sunset
Maybe Brett said something and Amy got banned.....
Has been quite a while come to think of it, Shane, did you take away her computer?
CR
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
Ok, maybe I'm not an expert on the matter, but here goes nothing:
The location of the test would be within the Nevada Test Site (NTS), which until 1992 was the location of our nuclear testing within the lower 48. Now, the last above ground test was in 1962, all subsequent tests have been below ground in order to reduce the amount of potential fallout in the region. In the 45 years since the last above ground test, how much of the fallout that littered the landscape of Frenchmen’s Flats is still there? How much has already blown away? Additionally, this blast would only be equivalent to 593 tons of TNT. For the NTS, that’s a pretty damn small blast! Yes, there is the potential of stirring up the fallout that hasn’t already blow away, but don't you think that an equivalent amount has already been stirred up by all of the other tests that they've been doing there over the years? This one is only getting this much attention because its such a large conventional blast.
I guess that the bottom line is this:
The reasons that we have downwinders is because for nearly a decade there was an atomic shot almost monthly, which repeatedly released fallout into the atmosphere. This is one very small test, that is not atomic and is underground. It will not be creating any new fallout and it will not stir up enough old material to cause a serious threat. Now if the government were intending to do this on a regular basis, then sure I would be worried. But once, not really. Then again, I'm just a historian, not a scientist.
The location of the test would be within the Nevada Test Site (NTS), which until 1992 was the location of our nuclear testing within the lower 48. Now, the last above ground test was in 1962, all subsequent tests have been below ground in order to reduce the amount of potential fallout in the region. In the 45 years since the last above ground test, how much of the fallout that littered the landscape of Frenchmen’s Flats is still there? How much has already blown away? Additionally, this blast would only be equivalent to 593 tons of TNT. For the NTS, that’s a pretty damn small blast! Yes, there is the potential of stirring up the fallout that hasn’t already blow away, but don't you think that an equivalent amount has already been stirred up by all of the other tests that they've been doing there over the years? This one is only getting this much attention because its such a large conventional blast.
I guess that the bottom line is this:
The reasons that we have downwinders is because for nearly a decade there was an atomic shot almost monthly, which repeatedly released fallout into the atmosphere. This is one very small test, that is not atomic and is underground. It will not be creating any new fallout and it will not stir up enough old material to cause a serious threat. Now if the government were intending to do this on a regular basis, then sure I would be worried. But once, not really. Then again, I'm just a historian, not a scientist.
waynehartwig
www.jeeperman.com
- Location
- Mead, WA
I'm against it. Why do they NEED to do something this large? They don't have anything large enough to transport this large of a weapon, so why test it? I guess if all goes well (badly) then they could reverse engineer something to transport this much explosive...
If the Government is so hell bent on shutting down every military base, then why are they spending more of our tax dollars to test something so large that they can't use. And with shutting down military bases, who would be around to even work it?
To me, it's just another way for them to waste our tax dollars on something that will never be used.
That's just the financial end of it - and it doesn't make sense. What about the environmental/ecological effects....
If the Government is so hell bent on shutting down every military base, then why are they spending more of our tax dollars to test something so large that they can't use. And with shutting down military bases, who would be around to even work it?
To me, it's just another way for them to waste our tax dollars on something that will never be used.
That's just the financial end of it - and it doesn't make sense. What about the environmental/ecological effects....
Tacoma
Et incurventur ante non
- Location
- far enough away
593 tons of TNT is an immense amount of explosives. To say that it isn't THAT big an explosion is to either
a. be an extreme relativist
b. not have seen what 10lbs of TNT can do.
a. be an extreme relativist
b. not have seen what 10lbs of TNT can do.
They are testing with conventional explosives to determin how big a tatical nuke needs to be to get the job done against burried targets. Tatical nukes are small
This page has more actual info.As far as that test range it is used to hundreds of kilotons, this test is barely more than half of 1 kiloton. Oh and for those who don't know, when used to describe TNT a ton is a unit energy not mass.
scoutabout
None
Kinda off topic, but related to the NTS. I took a tour there a couple years back with a group that had been arranged by my cousin (cold war memorial non-profit). It was fascinating. We've all seen the video of the house that has it's paint burned off before being wiped out by the blast. I've stood there. I sat in the control room and had lunch. We went to the crater of the largest underground explosion ever conducted on U.S. soil. Very interesting stuff.
Public tours are available, but you have to reserve a spot well in advance:
http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/tours.htm
The DOE rep on our tour said that there is 10x more radioactive material on the ground than they plan to put in Yucca Mountain.
Whether or not this new test is a good idea, that area will barely notice it happened.
Public tours are available, but you have to reserve a spot well in advance:
http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/tours.htm
The DOE rep on our tour said that there is 10x more radioactive material on the ground than they plan to put in Yucca Mountain.
Whether or not this new test is a good idea, that area will barely notice it happened.
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
You could call me a relativist, if you would like. I also think that 19th Century wasn't 'that long ago.'
In relation to the tests that the NTS was set aside for, a blast equivalent to 593 tons of TNT is nothing. Yes it has emense destructive capabilities, but as opposed to tens of kilotons or even megatons that nuclear testing on the site produced, 593 tons truely is THAT small. We're not talking about the 104 kiloton Storax Sedan shot (which created the crater that Steve saw).
This is the area where the test is supposed to occur. Every one of those craters was created by a multi kiloton blast. Beautiful picture, I think.
Attachments
Last edited:
waynehartwig
www.jeeperman.com
- Location
- Mead, WA
I still have the financial issue... Regardless of the size, and environmental impact, I can't see how it can be financially just.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't complained one bit about the $ cost of this Iraq deal, because it was necessary IMO. Just this other...Why? Tell me how it could possibly be benificial, then I might change my mind. Oh, and practical.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't complained one bit about the $ cost of this Iraq deal, because it was necessary IMO. Just this other...Why? Tell me how it could possibly be benificial, then I might change my mind. Oh, and practical.
Anfo is a lot chaper than a nuke? Infact anfo is dirt cheap. Not to mention the fact that we aren't supposed to test fire nukes....
As far as weapons development this test is a steal.
pumpkinbronc
ONETONPUMPKIN
- Location
- Mesquite, Nv
You people that live in large metro areas probably breath more crap than any of us down here would have to worry about from this blast. The air in Slc to me seems like ya could cut it with a knife. I say let em test it.
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
Is it benificial to test new drugs? Is it benificial to test cars side impact capabilities? Is it benificial to test obscure scientific theories that may yeild new developments 10, 20, 100 years from now?
The point of testing is to see how something affects something else. The point of this test is to see what affects a low yeild weapon would have on a hardened shelter (plus something else that I can't remember right now). The results could prove to be benefical, or it could be a wash. Thats the risk of testing.
This is not an issue of whether or not this 'weapon' will ever be used again. In fact this isn't even a weapons test, think of it as a technology demonstrator. The military wants to see what the effects are of a blast this size. In all reality it would be easier to use a nuclear weapon to conduct this test, but think about the uproar that would cause!waynehartwig said:
As for the closure of military bases, in a Post Cold-War world base closure and force realignment/consolodation is a nessecity that saves the public billions in tax dollars each year. As much as I resent the fact that the military is no longer the Cold-War era monster designed to take on the Red Army, do you really want to go back to spending 25% of every dollar on defense? I know that in this new era I would rather have a leaner, meaner more agile military and if that means closing bases that no longer fit into the current defense reality, so be it.
Tacoma
Et incurventur ante non
- Location
- far enough away
Relativist.
Given the enormous power of the other blasts detonated in that area, you're correct. I watch the blasts at the Depot in the summer and they're from like, 500-1500lbs of conventional explosives at once. Big clouds.
as to your other post, I'd love to be spending 25% of every dollar on the military, instead of spending on things the government should be staying out of, like the NEA, or maybe the bloated waste of an education department.
but I digress. I don't think the 19th century was all that long ago either.
Given the enormous power of the other blasts detonated in that area, you're correct. I watch the blasts at the Depot in the summer and they're from like, 500-1500lbs of conventional explosives at once. Big clouds.
as to your other post, I'd love to be spending 25% of every dollar on the military, instead of spending on things the government should be staying out of, like the NEA, or maybe the bloated waste of an education department.
but I digress. I don't think the 19th century was all that long ago either.
You could call me a relativist, if you would like. I also think that 19th Century wasn't 'that long ago.'
In relation to the tests that the NTS was set aside for, a blast equivalent to 593 tons of TNT is nothing. Yes it has emense destructive capabilities, but as opposed to tens of kilotons or even megatons that nuclear testing on the site produced, 593 tons truely is THAT small. We're not talking about the 104 kiloton Storax Sedan shot (which created the crater that Steve saw).
This is the area where the test is supposed to occur. Every one of those craters was created by a multi kiloton blast. Beautiful picture, I think.
If it doesn't involve Fission or Fusion and its under ground I don't think its an issue. I've studied plenty of Chemistry an learned quite a bit about all thease topics. I personally would be, and am more concerned about Kennicott and ganeva steel, and how much they've destroyed and are destroying our environment on a dayly basis. Now if it was a nuke on the other hand thats a bit differnet story...
I will agree that it is a wast of money but concidering our gov spends more on defence than it does on all other programs combined, this blast is probobly a very small drop in the bucket...
I will agree that it is a wast of money but concidering our gov spends more on defence than it does on all other programs combined, this blast is probobly a very small drop in the bucket...
This notion that more is spent on defense than all all other programs combined has been gaining in popularity lately, but it's slightly misleading.
Current defense appropriations (federal funds) amount to 21% of the budget. Now when you factor in funds not considered federal funds (e.g. trust funds) that are diverted to the defense budget, then it's about 10% higher.
Several sources take this figure and add Veterans' benefits and a portion of the interest on the debt. This is where it gets misleading. Also, the exact percentage of the interest on the debt is a point of contention as well. Most sources use 50-60%, but one organization uses 80%. Between the interest and Veterans' benefits, at the highest estimates, tack on 20% to the 31% figure, for a grand total of 51%.
Besides the varying estimates of the interest on the debt, a significant portion goes to veterans' benefits, which include retirement pay and the VA budget. This is sometimes referred to "past military" spending. The actual current defense budget using both federal funds and trust funds is approximately 31% of the entire federal budget. And that's erring on the high side.
