gabriel pagliarani wrote:Sorry Mark V,
I am old and my own memory lacks. Do you ask me if I have understood your questions?
My question was: What if Fat Man would have been exploded at 18.000 feet ??
Since you would not want to give answer, i'll give it to you; The effects (if not looking straight up to explosion) would have been almost nil. OK, some roof tiles misplaced, paint dropping from ceiling of buildings and few cracked windows, but even unprotected person straight under detonation would have been quite safe.
My point: Even with such powerfull weapon as nuclear bomb you still need reasonable accurate detonation altitude to accomplish anything.
I resumed all the statements in the previous posts, but there is always an error of yours.
Would you please show my errors in my previous post ??
On the contrary, you just throw opinions and when faced with more accurate information just disregard it and move to next wild opinion (mostly spiced up with numbers pulled out of hat). Sorry, if this sounds harsh, but this is how a feel your last posts.
You have claimed in this thread (i have left all errors in numbers and names out, none of us is perfect and like stated previously we are all friends here):
- implosion nuclear bomb would have easy to minituarize
- there is no difference on spreading CBW agent at 3000 feet, or spreading it to 18000 feet
- Uranium from Congo had not been found
- V-2 with landing-parachute retarded warhead would have been feasible with WW2 era technology
Every time faced with more accurate information you just skip the issue and continue to next claim, but seemingly determined to "revenge" to the poor person who in good faith just wants to share some information that has accumulated during years.
Thin man equivalent has been made only few months after WW2!
During 40s, 50s and 60s there were numerous experimental nuclear assembly experiments. Some were successfull, some were not. High speed plutonium gun is definately the latter category. Different implosion techniques can fullfill most roles, and those where it is not ideal can be fullfilled by HEU-gun assemblies.
In this thread we were discussing about the Thin Man plutonium-gun (secondary fuel HEU) design that predecessed the deployed designs, HEU-gun Little Boy and Plutonium spherical implosion Fat Man.
As Scott Smith said the implosive technology had been choosen only because previously tested and the Nagasaki bomb was Pu239+Pu240 charged.
I don't want to talk on behalf of Scott by i think he didn't say anything like that. He said that there were alternatives for (spherical) implosion on Plutonium bomb, but the fast-gun was not alternative. Don't you get that it didn't work with Plutonium !!
Scott propably ment that there is several different implosion designs available for Plutonium assembly and he is right.
What was needed to accomplish the objectives of Manhattan project was a weapon that could use Plutonium, a fissionable material which showed more promise for quantity production fast (and fullfilled that promise fully in 1945). Americans also build vast uranium enrichment capacity starting from war years, but the costs were huge and it did take time to develope effective processes and build enrichment facilities. Enrichment of HEU for Little Boy was tremendeous task, but it was needed because HEU-gun (take notice - the "slow" gun) was quite certain to work and would have given at least very limited capacity if implosion bomb design would have failed. But it didn't fail, and when successfull spherical implosion design (Mk-III) was on hand it served as only available bomb design for years. It could use both, Plutonium and HEU, or even composite cores.
The additive technology was studied and finally choosen in order to reduce the grossweight of the A-bomb for airborne carriers.
Sorry, i didn't get that. ?!?! What do you mean ??
Do you want to know the real meaning because V2 cannot be a "first generation A-bomb" carrier? Simple reply: the grossweight.
What i wrote in my first post in this thread ---- Exactly that !!
About MIRV's "brother killing feature" light run 1km in 3.3 microseconds, 10km in 33 micros. and 100km in 330 micros. If you want a simultaneous contigueus explosion centered 50km one each other or detonation occurs with a maximum time lap of 175 microseconds (actually impossible) or you must wait some hours for a second detonation. This is the reason of super H-bombs.
Like i posted previously you need carefull targeting planning to avoid "brotherkill", but don't exaggerate.
You don't need hours to wait. Most modern warheads are hardened against radiation (to protect them against nuclear tipped ABMs and to protect them against "brotherkill").
I don't have information how severe radiation exposure modern warheads can take. And you don't either. These are the most well kept secrets of nuclear powers.
We have to form our opinion on regard of what kind of design has proved to be most successfull over times (talking all the time about retaliatory weapons - mostly SLBMs) and MIRVs have proved to be the clear winners and multimegaton class warheads have been fallen to obscurity.
Early multimegaton missiles (Titan II, SS-9) were developed to kill cities indeed, and they had such poor accuracy that even with 10-20 megaton warheads they couldn't do anything else either.
Later Soviet big-guns (some SS-18 mods) were developed on my opinion mostly against enemys command and control structure. To put it straightly - to turn Cheyenne Mountain to Cheyenne Lake.
About power if 1kiloton=1000tons of TNT=1 Hiroshima, then 1 Megaton=1000x1000kilotons=1000 Hiroshima. Then 50 Megatons=50000 Hiroshima.
Hiroshima bomb was not 1 kt.
Predicted yield was 13.4 kt. Estimates about actual yield vary between 11 kt - 18 kt
(BTW. The 50+ megaton weapon that you continuosly refer is actually a 100 megaton weapon. It was tested with tungsten tertiary tamper to keep the fallout down. The actual weapon was 100 megaton, alltough there is possibility that 50+ megaton low-yield mod was also weaponized)
I said before 1Hiroshima=1Fat man but this is only a conventional charge...no one is 100%sure of the real power of that bomb because nobody was there to measure it. Someone said 1Hiroshima= 1000 tons of TNT= 1kiloton, someone else said 1 Hiroshima= 2.5 kilotons. It is not a 100% phisical measurement, so you are free to choose your own opinion about. It is impossible to measure exactly such a phoenomenon like a nuke only by effects in air.
Fat Man was about 20-22 kt. So it was little bit more powerfull than Little Boy. Fat Man yield can be stated more accurately because same assembly had been exploded earlier.
One thing is sure: Neither of them was even near 1 kt !
.. how many short -tons are there in 1 metric ton? but the measurement of destructive power of any bomb is always related to ground effects in a para-scientific way.
There is nothing "para" on yield of nuclear weapons, after all we are talking about physical phenomenon that could be measured, not some out-of-the-world experience.
OK. That is enough. I am getting sick and tired about this worthless discussion... I don't think other members are getting anything valuable from this...