Sign in or 
Location: Attack Timeline
Discussion: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this|
MoodyLoner |
Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 26 2008, 7:59 PM EST
I've been seeing around here that the attacks were 20 kiloton devices - which would put them somewhere between improvised nuclear device and tactical nuclear weapon. However, I'm sure that in Hawkins' flashbacks that they referred to the weapons as "20-megaton enhanced radiation" devices.I know I'm a noob here - I haven't found all the nooks and crannies yet, so if I'm posting this in the wrong place I apologize. Can you point me to the figures? I'm casually curious to see if I'm in the A.S.A or if I don't have to worry about it. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
savagesteve13 |
1. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 26 2008, 10:10 PM EST
They were Russian-made thermonuclear RV's, normally used in ICBMs. They obviously pack a much bigger punch and a crude fission device but the government wants people to think it was a terrorist attack with crude nukes.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
MoodyLoner |
2. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 27 2008, 10:54 AM EST
Okay, after a little research on teh Interwebs (Hi, NSA! Tell Homeland Security it was research for a fan site, please) that, although the announced yield of the attacks were 20 kt do match the smallest Russian/Soviet weapons available (the warheads from antisubmarine torpedoes, in case anyone's interested), if we're talking "thermonuclear RV used in ICBMs" we're looking at a minimum yield of 2 megatons, over 100 times the claimed yield, with i likely yield of 20 megatons, about 1000 times the yield if my pre-coffee math is correct.This explains Washington, D.C. being "gone", as well as the huge fallout patterns from what are claimed to be improvised fission devices barely larger than Fat Man and Little Boy. For the "99% of the Internet is crap" folks, the site I'm getting my info from: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/rusnukes.html claims to get their info from Janes' Strategic Weapons, which I hear is good, along with the START II treaty and several other publications Admittedly, the data is ten years old, but unless the Russians have started a craze of low-yeild ICBM warheads my point stands. Now, assuming the writers didn't fall down on this, then the announced yield of the weapons used in the attacks is a flat-out lie. A flat-out lie, by the way, that the Russians, Chinese, NATO members, and anyone else with a seismograph knows to be one, as well as anyone wondering how you get a six-mile-wide crater out of a 20 kt weapon. At about twenty miles from San Francisco, however, it's not my problem - at 25 miles I'm probably in the third-degree-burn area of the San Francisco strike. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Chief3x7 |
3. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 27 2008, 11:05 AM EST
"Okay, after a little research on teh Interwebs (Hi, NSA! Tell Homeland Security it was research for a fan site, please) that, although the announced yield of the attacks were 20 kt do match the smallest Russian/Soviet weapons available (the warheads from antisubmarine torpedoes, in case anyone's interested), if we're talking "thermonuclear RV used in ICBMs" we're looking at a minimum yield of 2 megatons, over 100 times the claimed yield, with i likely yield of 20 megatons, about 1000 times the yield if my pre-coffee math is correct.Great info, but they have been saying all along they were 20 KT not megaton devices. Do you find this valuable? |
|
MoodyLoner |
4. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 27 2008, 11:50 AM EST
Then I'd say we have a problem. There are no 20 kt Russian ICBM thermonuclear warheads. Weapons with that low of a yield are tactical, not strategic - and they have damn few tactical weapons that small. Either the yield is wrong or the source is. Given the effects documented in the series, I'm leaning towards the yield - but there are problems there too.It occurs to me this could be a continuity error - but I'd hate to think that the writers and producers couldn't match the research that took me half an hour from my living room in my PJs, with my seven-year-old crawling on me. Let me put it this way: From my morning's reading, I'm reasonably certain that the weapons they describe could not have been as small as 20 kt. I am less certain, although pretty sure, that 20 kt weapons would not have had the effects shown in the series. I am damn certain that were the weapons of a higher yield than claimed, particularly three orders of magnitude higher, that most governments would know it - but that it's likely most of the people in Jericho don't. The easiest way would be to retcon them into 20 kt Russian antisubmarine torpedo warheads, and nod and smile regarding the effects. Do you find this valuable? |
|
bobdefalco |
5. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 27 2008, 9:36 PM EST
Yeah, that bit was suspension of disbelief. 20 kt burst wouldn't really be all that huge. It's about what hit Nagasaki - the closest survivor of that blast was 300 meters away (http://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/akiko.html). The weapons themselves could be the primary from a larger thermonuclear weapon.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
MoodyLoner |
6. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 27 2008, 11:09 PM EST
"This actually is a very good point. Farting around with thermonuclear weapons, however, is not the way to a long and happy life. Particularly disassembling them. Mr. Plutonium Primary Fission Charge is Not Your Friend. Do you find this valuable? |
mjk1971 |
7. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 28 2008, 3:13 AM EST
"I've been seeing around here that the attacks were 20 kiloton devices - which would put them somewhere between improvised nuclear device and tactical nuclear weapon. However, I'm sure that in Hawkins' flashbacks that they referred to the weapons as "20-megaton enhanced radiation" devices.20 Kt is nothing to sneeze at...more powerful than those that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And they may be more powerful than that, 65Kt o And the Russians haven't fielded 20 Mt weapons for decades. The largest fielded, on SS-18s, are 1 Mt. Do you find this valuable? |
|
MoodyLoner |
8. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 28 2008, 9:57 AM EST
"20 Kt is nothing to sneeze at...more powerful than those that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And they may be more powerful than that, 65Kt oNot all that much more powerful. You do have a point about the SS-18s, though - the most verifiable data I could find on Russian nuclear weapons on the Web was decades old. Yeah, I wouldn't volunteer to stand next to it - but I don't think one would destroy DC. And we still have the problem of the Russians not having any 20kt ICBM warheads, right? Do you find this valuable? |
|
konev2008 |
9. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 28 2008, 6:34 PM EST
I agree. 30 kts are possible, but not 20kts. Also, another problem is for the town of Jericho actually see ICBMs going up from southwest Kansas. There is absolutely no way for the town to see them (especially given what it looks how close they are). Now definitely from northwest Kansas (plus the mushroom cloud of Denver)....... konev Do you find this valuable? |
|
konev2008 |
10. RE: Wait, 20 kt attacks?
Feb 28 2008, 9:33 PM EST
BTW, here's a web site that show every missile silo location (check under FE Warrern AFB):http://www.siloworld.com/COORDINATES/LOCAL.htm konev Do you find this valuable? |
