http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030520/ts_nm/arms_congress_dc_2)

To me, this sounds kinda fishy...

Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon briefing the nuclear warheads may destroy deadly biological or chemical material that would be dispersed by conventional weapons.

Haven't they ever seen a mushroom cloud? Wouldn't that disperse the deadly chemicals even more than a conventinal bomb (and also add radiation to the list of things releashed)?

Rumsfeld said the administration just wanted to study these weapons, "not to develop, not to deploy, not to use" them.

He may be reassuring the world now, but how in the future? To me, the Bush administration is trying to using a step-by-step method to gain more power/influence/etc. First they go to war with Iraq (understandable at best IMO), then they use the excuse of destroying chemical weapons to try to lift the ban on nuclear weapons. Is this the a scheme of some sort of the administration?

If we detonated every nuclear munition on this planet, the explosive power would be enough to blow up ten planets the size of Earth.

One of the strongest nuclear bombs in the world is powerful enough to devastate the entire continent of the United States.

I remind Rumsfeld that he is supposed to be against WMDs.


It's obvious that Rumsfeld has learned nothing from the Cold War. And why doesn't he consider that the world might find it "a bit fishy", as wassup said? This country that invaded Iraq for having WMDs wants less restrictions on building and researching WMDs, and reserves its right to have WMDs (the USA should be dismantling its stockpile).

Haven't they ever seen a mushroom cloud? Wouldn't that disperse the deadly chemicals even more than a conventinal bomb (and also add radiation to the list of things releashed)?

You may want to note that we are talking about tactical nuclear arms. These babies are supposed to be designed and employed to penetrate earth and concrete and bust enemy bunkers. And only enemy bunkers.

However, scientists seem to think that it's impossible to do without creating a 'roman candle' effect.

More here (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=5&articleID=000871E7-7293-1D06-8E49809EC588EEDF)

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

If we detonated every nuclear munition on this planet, the explosive power would be enough to blow up ten planets the size of Earth.

One of the strongest nuclear bombs in the world is powerful enough to devastate the entire continent of the United States.

The first part seems rather unlikely, given that:

The Earth is composed mainly of rock with a density of more than ten times that of water. Additionally, the Earth is (approximately) a sphere with a radius of 6000km.

D.h.: The Earth weighs considerably more than PI*(6000km)^2*10tons/m^2. That's approx. 1,08*10^18kg. That's quite a lot.

You got some sources on the second part?

The damage done by a nuclear device measured against the distance from ground zero decreases faster than 1/d^2, where d is the distance, so the last part seems pretty unlikely, too.

BTW: The US isn't a continent.

I meant the continent of Australia:)

Oh, and I've heard multiple times, in and outside of school, in more than one country, that we've got enough arms to blow up several Earths.

This is the beginning of the end of the world..lalala..This is the beginning of the end of the world..lalala...This is the beginning of the end of the world..lalala...

I would think that the heat involved with the detonation of a low-yield nuclear device would be more than sufficient to fully consume the chemicals and biological compounds (if they exist) that he indicates. The matter that is sucked into the "mushroom cloud" would mostly consist of soil outside of the target area that is drawn into the vacume created by the blast.

ShadowT:
One could argue that destroying the planet could consist of destroying the habitable portion that concerns life such as humanity. I wonder what the effect of all the available nuclear weapons, evenly spaced on the populated spaces of the planet would have.

But I agree... total destruction of a planet would seem to be beyond the ability of weapons we currently have available.

I'm just going to say it like this: Rumsfeld sucks even more than Bush.

Badmouthing allies, breaking laws, breaking treaties they expect everyone else to follow:mad:.

First they badmouth France and Russia for not wanting any part of this Bandit shoot-out. Then when France offers to help repairing Iraq, the USA teases them. Hello? France offers to help clean up a mess they didn't even make in the first place, and that's bad too?

If Bush and Rumsfeld could be a bit more humane, a lot less US flags would get burned each year.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I meant the continent of Australia:)

U got stats on that? Australia is a pretty big place too. A really, really badass nuke might kill everything within a 10km radius, but I sorely doubt that you could wipe the whole of Australia with one bomb. It just goes against everything my physical intuition tells me. You'll have to source it to get me convinced.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Oh, and I've heard multiple times, in and outside of school, in more than one country, that we've got enough arms to blow up several Earths.

As Skinwalker has already said, the current nuclear stockpile can blow away almost every human being on the planet. However, blowing up the planet itself would require "a thousand ships with more firepower than...".

As a matter of fact, I think that imagining that we humans have the power to kill all life on Earth is arrogant in the extreme.

Skinwalker:

I would think that the heat involved with the detonation of a low-yield nuclear device would be more than sufficient to fully consume the chemicals and biological compounds (if they exist) that he indicates. The matter that is sucked into the "mushroom cloud" would mostly consist of soil outside of the target area that is drawn into the vacume created by the blast.

'Cept that the Scientific American article says that we don't yet know whether there'd be fallout in the cloud (which by the way isn't mushroom-shaped in an underground detonation; the mushroom shape is caused by the heat of the blast, whereas a blast-cloud from an underground detonation is shaped mainly by the pressure of the release).

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
'Cept that the Scientific American article says that we don't yet know whether there'd be fallout in the cloud (which by the way isn't mushroom-shaped in an underground detonation; the mushroom shape is caused by the heat of the blast, whereas a blast-cloud from an underground detonation is shaped mainly by the pressure of the release).

Hmmm.... I hadn't really thought of that... I was just answering his concerns over the matter in the cloud. True, being an underground detonation, the fireball would have less heat escape into the air to create the "mushroom" effect.

Your point about radiation would seem valid, though. There's bound to be a shock wave, and thus some sort of dust cloud, even is relatively small. Since the bombardment of radiation would be instantaneous and the movement of the dust cloud significantly slower, it is reasonable to assume that the resulting cloud would be irradiated. The effects, then, would depend on weather and proximity of habitation.

Another problem with the use of tactical nukes for this sort of operation: irradiation of underground aquifers. If the minute particles of minerals that travel with H2O (or DHMO ;) ) were to become irradiated, I would think this could cause problems for populations hundreds of miles away within years. Though it's probable that much of the particulate matter would be filtered in the rock of the aquifer. Still, it's worth considering.

I also can't imagine being able to positively identify a chem/bio weapons site well enough to warrant the use of a tactical nuke, but then not be able to use a more conventional method of creating heat without fission. Pump the site full of propane then detonate a conventional explosive. (propane is heavier than air and will settle well in the underground site).