Slashdot Mirror

You don't need neural networks - all you need is FOPEN

The automatic target detection algorithms have already been written and are being tested by various parties receiveing funding from DARPA and the various branches of the military. SAR delivers the data needed to not only identify targets but to find them even when they are hidden, and relay the coordinates to a ground station.

There is a lot of this work going on that is in the public domain (like the link above) and much, much more that is classified.

> The Army expects by September to spent about $7.5 million on the program

With all due respect,
Advertising is very expensive.

I mean, Geez - $7.5 Million would buy what?... two or three superbowl slots? For a little perspective, With the population of the United States at around 300 Million, This works out to about 2 1/2 cents per citizen. IMHO, a worthwhile investment to recruit reliable people to operate Multimillion dollar equipment like an $8.1 Million Cargo Plane. or billion dollar aircraft carrier. Do you want the best people you can find? Or do you want to have people that weren't even accepted into college?

Also, Consider the cost to exposure_time ratio. Instead of viewing a 30 second commercial, potential canidates will likely be spending HOURS and HOURS of time on their computers. I don't know about you, but I don't usually decide my future upon a 30 second commercial (Although I love the one with the Godsmack tune ;-)

It is a well known fact that the military has been having difficulty recruiting people in recent years. They're doing all they can to fill the empty spots, and they're being very creative about it. Heck, It looks like they're even teaming up with VH1 to start a show called Miltary Diaries (or something like that).

The point here is to create a little bit of excitement about joining the military. If you get enough people talking about it, many will start asking questions and talk with their recruiter. Yes, The military still wants Athleticly gifted recruits, but the new military is evolving into a thinking man's war - Not the brute force approach we've come to expect from some 3rd world country.

Lastly, Don't make this a political issue.
(off the Record, I did not vote for Clinton or Bush. ) Your $100 Billion dollar deficit figures are misleading. What makes you think that republicans spend more money than democratcs would have? You convieniently neglected to mention President Clinton's $288 Billion Military Spending. " Yes, Virginia! - Democrats like to spend money too! - And this was well before Buzzwords like Terrorism and economic recession gained recent popularity. Give these guys some credit. I think it is an excellent tool to increase recruiting numbers in an overweight slacker society - Although we may need to wait a few years and see the numbers to see who wins this argument.

...do they make something like that?

If you're on the moon, you don't need nuclear weapons. As for communications, the signal loss is so dramatic, especially for signals that aren't explicitly pointed at the moon, that you'd be wasting your time.

Since 80% of the effort of going to the moon is actually used in getting off the earth's surface, you'd be better off with earth-based satellites. For some information (of unknown quality) on this topic, check the Federation of American Scientists site.

You mean like this? (Ok, so it's not a Bell...)

I mean if the "missile-launching attack helicopter" is going to launch a dozen missiles, there would probably need to be some place to keep the missiles that wasn't the magical tube of missile-spewing death, right?

Well, since each launcher holds 7 missiles, and there were two per helicopter, a dozen missiles sounds reasonable.

You mean like this? (Ok, so it's not a Bell...)

I mean if the "missile-launching attack helicopter" is going to launch a dozen missiles, there would probably need to be some place to keep the missiles that wasn't the magical tube of missile-spewing death, right?

Well, since each launcher holds 7 missiles, and there were two per helicopter, a dozen missiles sounds reasonable.

"It Steam-engines come steam-engine time." . There are only so many right ways to do things. Not every design that looks identical is a copy.

Yes, it IS American policy to brook no competition. Can't blame them for that, just make sure that they don't get away with it.

BTW it would be a good idea for the benefit of lurkers to give some links to the subjects under discussion. For example, the X-30 also here looks rather like the German "Saenger" rather than a HOTOL.

Before it is said too many times, the Hindenburg did not explode because of hydrogen. The doping material used to seal the canvas had a chemical composition close to rocket fuel. Doesn't anyone watch Nova?

lots of good pix here
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm

a paper on SBL for missile defense
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/98-16 5.htm

SBL fact sheet (PDF)
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/sbl.pdf

Missile Defense Agency homepage
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink . tml

other links
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/md/sbl/
http://www.sbl.losangeles.af.mil/Divisions/FrontOf fice/body.htm
http://www.trw.com/presskits/detailinfo/0,1067,2_1 2^2^12^40,FF.html

lots of good pix here
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm

a paper on SBL for missile defense
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/98-16 5.htm

SBL fact sheet (PDF)
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/sbl.pdf

Missile Defense Agency homepage
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/bmdolink . tml

other links
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/md/sbl/
http://www.sbl.losangeles.af.mil/Divisions/FrontOf fice/body.htm
http://www.trw.com/presskits/detailinfo/0,1067,2_1 2^2^12^40,FF.html

They won't, because memos don't always get out. You only hear about the ones that do.

The really incriminating stuff never gets typed up in the first place. Verbal only. (The CIA manual on assassination offers similar advice. Never put anything seriously incriminating in writing. Verbal only.)

Even if something seriously incriminating did make it to writing, it might never see the light of day. (Ask Reagan's archivists.) And if it did see the light of day, it might not be admissable in court. And even if it is admissable, it might be countered with any of 20 tactics, (like a loud "so what").

=brian

That's what happens when you get trigger happy on the submit button, the comment was to read as: This technology has been around for years. The difference with this article on CNET is that it appears it has fallen into the hands of local law enforcement, rather than outfits like the CIA or FBI. It's called TEMPEST. And it appears I'm smoking something mentioning local law enforcement, I don't know where I got that from, skimmed the article too fast or mixed it up with something else I was reading..Heh, I shouldn't be posting this morning.

Here's some great pics of the Russian AN-124 - it's quite a monster.

Gerald Bull who shot to fame as the inventor of the Iraqi Super Gun did a lot of work on constant pressure launch systems - enormous cannons with explosives positioned along the barrel to keep the pressure behind the projectile constant for the full launch length.

Estimated cost to LEO? $1 per pound.

Because the shock was distributed along the acceleration, maximum G force on the load was 40G: fine for food and fuel and most construction supplies.

You can read more about his work at Federation of American Scientists Supergun pages, [2], and at NASA.

There really is more than one way to do it.

Gerald Bull who shot to fame as the inventor of the Iraqi Super Gun did a lot of work on constant pressure launch systems - enormous cannons with explosives positioned along the barrel to keep the pressure behind the projectile constant for the full launch length.

Estimated cost to LEO? $1 per pound.

Because the shock was distributed along the acceleration, maximum G force on the load was 40G: fine for food and fuel and most construction supplies.

You can read more about his work at Federation of American Scientists Supergun pages, [2], and at NASA.

There really is more than one way to do it.

The russian space shuttles are carried by the AN-225 myria, one BIG airplane indeed (it has a payload of over twice hat of the C-5). It is a derivative of the AN-124 condor...

Reading stuff like this, although it is not placed in context (as others mention here), is startling. It does make me frightened in any case. A good starting point for the spread of biological and chemical weapons in the world, and perhaps more importantly who supports whom, is the federation of American Scientists website.

I'm a South African and was shocked to read about the support given by almost all Western Governments to the Dr.Mengele of the Apartheid Government, Dr.Wouter Basson, a.k.a. Dr.Death, in that regime's attempts to create bio weapons which would only affect black people. (Although why they had this strange idea that blacks are some other species I don't know). In any case, although probably many people don't remember it, in the mid 80's an East German microbiologist claimed that the actual origions of the HIV virus(various newspaper archives) were in fact in a USArmy bioweapons lab in either Virginia or Maryland (Ft.Derrick? I don't remember the name). He was laughed off at the time. I also, in terms of normal common sense found it somewhat implausiable. But the problem is, who do you believe, and who do you trust?

I was somewhat amazed at the many coincidents (reminiscent of a good episode of the X-Files) in the Anthrax attacks in the US last year. Why Florida? Why the isolated cases of lonely old women? Why liberal or popular politicians? How did the FBI get to the conclusion so rapidly that it was not linked to the 9/11 higjackers and that it was "probably of domestic origion"? Why has nothing ever come out of the investigation?

I don't really like conspiracy theories, as they tend to cloud real events, but who do you believe? And what do you believe? Did anyone in any so-called country ever give their politicians an explicit right to muck around with stuff as dangerous as this?

• Considering that even the military now admits that no Patriot *ever* intercepted an Iraqi scud, this inference is unfounded.

• "What we weren't told at the time," said Conyers, "was that the explosions we saw in the sky were not caused by direct impacts but by proximity fuses as the Patriot neared a Scud or a Scud fragment, or by the missile automatically self-destructing after missing a Scud. In slow motion, many of the engagements described as bullseyes' or 'direct hits' appear to be misses by wide margins. One shot of a Patriot turning 180 degrees and diving into the ground was inaccurately described repeatedly on television as a Scud interception. As Sherlock Holmes said, We see but we do not observe.'"

You can see where Clinton got his ideas about the semantics of sex from, and where Gates got off arguing over the meaning of the word "the". We intercepted most of the scuds, we just didn't stop any.

Even if the patriots did fail, why would that have grave implications for our anti ballistic missile shield? SCUDs are cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles. Why do you think those big computers at Norad can accurately predict where the warheads will hit just after boost?

Um, no. The SCUD is the theater ballistic missile not a cruise missle. It looks like a WWII German V2. See this page for more info.

I don't understand why there are spaces in the URLs I wrote in my message, but here they are, sans spaces:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/rp911024.ht m

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1997/09/08/opin/l etters.1.html

Note: I am NOT a regular reader of the Christian Science Monitor. I included that link because the author is from MIT. And before you mod my previous post as off-topic, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to dismiss something as a software bug. It's much harder to do some real thinking and make sure that the concept is valid to begin with.

GMD

dfn5 wrote:
In Nevada's past nuclear testing happened. It led to a Nuclear weapon that helped put an end to WWII

The Trinity Test was performed at Trinity Site, New Mexico. Nevada had nothing to do with it.

(And, incidentally, the type of bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not tested before being used since it was of the simpler Uranium 235 gun type. The Trinity Test involved the Plutonium 239 implosion type which was the same as the type dropped three days after Hiroshima on Nagasaki.)

-nukebuddy

While our fearless leaders would have been riding out World War III in the comfort and safety of places like the shelter under the Greenbriar resort in WV, the Joe and Jane Taxpayers of the country were mostly left with the "duck and cover" method.

~Philly

Hey, there's worse ways to go. On second you're sitting in orbit, the next, you're a cloud of ionized atoms.


Nobody seemed to like my little word problem a couple weeks ago about Saddam wanting to get two tons of BB's into orbit. Eh. Good thing the Israelis snuffed Gerald Bull.
"It was meant for long-range attack and also to blind spy satellites. Our scientists were seriously working on that. It was designed to explode a shell in space that would have sprayed a sticky material on the satellite and blinded it." -- The high-ranking Iraqi defector Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majeed

The Japenese Halca satellite, launched in 1997 had an 8 meter deployable dish, and it was supposed to be superceeded by something bigger (but funding got a bit tight of course)
The "Trumpet" SigInt (Signals Intellegence) satellites, of which the NSA has launched 4 or so, have an absolutly HUGE dish. See Pic here Size is said to be in the region of 150-200 meters in diameter, in a very high orbit (either Moylina, or Geosync)
(Of course, it needs to be that size to pick up your keystrokes and monitor radiation from orbit.)

Karma cap reached, so mod somebody else up.

A submarine's hull is normally constructed of steel, or exceptionally of titanium. Special High Yield [HY] steel alloys have been developed to increase the diving depth of submarines, although the improved depth performance of these alloys imposes a price of increased fabrication challenges. These special steels are denominated by their yield stress in thousands of pounds per square inch -- thus HY-80 steel has a yield stress of 80,000 pounds per square inch [corresponding to a depth of 1,800 feet], HY-100 a a yield stress of 100,000 pounds per square inch [corresponding to a depth of 2,250 feet], and so on.

During World War II, American fleet submarines normally operated at a depth of 200 feet, though in emergencies they would dive to a depth of 400 feet.
Post-War American submarines, both conventional and nuclear, had improved designs and were constructed of improved materials [the equivalent of "HY-42"]. These boats had normal operating depths of some 700 feet, and a crush depth of 1100 feet.
The Thresher, the first American submarine constructed of HY-80 steel, reportedly had a normal operating depth of 1,300 feet, roughly two-thirds the crush depth limit imposed by the HY-80 steel.
The Seawolf, the first American submarine constructed of HY-100 steel, is officially claimed by the Navy to have a normal operating depth of "greater than 800 feet," but based on the reported operating depth of the Thresher, it may be assumed that the normally operating depth of the Seawolf is roughly double the official figure.
The Soviet Alfa submarines, constructed of titanium, reportedly had an operating depth of nearly 4,000 feet
.

• Until you learn that you have to not only take the 'dangerous end' of the weapon away from the enemy, but you have to take your trigger hand off of the grip and trigger to reload it. It takes two hands and more time. Also its nearly impossible to reload easily while laying down to fire, and soldiers do that A LOT. Also a bullpup exposes more head and shoulders around a corner when firing.

So these bullpup guns are bad, and the M16 type design is good? Okay...but when why is the FN-P90, a bullpup design, replacing the MP5 (an M16-type weapon) in the US Airforce (don't know about Army)?

I actually don't see why you'd need to point the muzzle away from your target during reloading. Depending how you hold the weapon, it seems that it would be sometimes easier to reload while pointing forward, and sometimes more difficult, than the M16. Likewise, assuming a good design, I don't see why you'd need two hands, or more time. Lying down to fire (sorry, in the rest of the world we understand the distinction between a verb and a past participle) would seem to be easier, since you've got no magazine hanging out the bottom and can streamline the gun against your shoulder. And once again, assuming a decent design, I can't see why you'd need to expose more head and shoulders when firing around a corner. You don't have to hold the weapon against your shoulder to fire.

I've seen these things used very competently by actors. I'd be surprised if real soldiers had more difficulty with them, despite more strenous and difficult circumstances.

You also forgot to mention that bullpup designs have longer muzzles, greater magazine capacity and are generally more lightweight. For example, compare the P90 to the M16. The P90 weighs 3.0 kg loaded, has a 50-round magazine and a muzzle velocity of 715 m/s unless subsonic rounds are required, where a 304 m/s bullet can be used. It has a cyclic rate of fire of 900 rpm and its 5.56 mm rounds can piece level-3 body armour at 200 m with a maximum range of 400 m. It's also extremely easy to clean (four minutes), has a built-in supressor and laser site.

The M16 weighs 3.99 kg loaded, has a 30-round magazine and a muzzle velocity of 853 m/s. Its cyclic rate of fire is 800 rpm and its 5.56 mm rounds have a maximum range of 360 m despite its greater muzzle velocity (I couldn't find the effective range in the time I felt like spending). As is also fairly obvious, the M16 is a very long and bulky weapon (a metre long), while the P90 is compact and streamlined and precisely half the length.

I was under the impression that these weapons were used under different circumstances. One is a rifle, the other a submachinegun. Nonetheless, you could check your facts before applying gross generalisations. Your entire post comes across "patriotic" rubbish demonstrating an arrogant Usian viewpoint that might is right. Everyone knows the US has the most advanced military force in the world, and most people realise that this does not always guarantee victory. Why are you getting so uptight trying to prove it does? Is a country's worth measured by its firepower?

1. "This unique interaction prevents the concrete from cracking and, when properly designed, the composite section can withstand more stress and absorb more energy than an advanced aerospace composite made using materials such as graphite and epoxy."

2. "Two of our chapter members and some other students on campus recently put this claim to the test by designing, building, and launching the first rocket made from reinforced concrete."

Maybe the SR-71 won't leak on the runway!

God forbid the Cyber-Terrorists should get their hands on this! Good thing we have the far-reaching grasp of the Patriot Act and the new Cyberterrorism Act ready to defend us.

I think . . .

The AIM-9X / look-n-shoot is a direct response to the Cold War developments by the Soviets that was above and beyond any technology we had. The system used in the MIG-29 and SU-27, comprised of slaving the targeting computer to the helmet display and using FLIR as well, similar to the Apaches'. But the neat thing about the Soviet's system is that it was completely passive, with use of a variety of missles IR or radar: AA-10b/d "Alamo" or AA-11 "Archer". Also, the field of view of the IR seekers and the maneuverability of their missles had much wider envelopes than ours (US). The AA-11 uses thrust-vectoring to maneuver in such a way as to be able to pull over 12 Gs and has a range of 40 km, compared to our AIM-9M max range of about 15-20 km and maneuverability of about 9-10 Gs.

(link to Soviet missles)

The AIM-9X / look-n-shoot is a direct response to the Cold War developments by the Soviets that was above and beyond any technology we had. The system used in the MIG-29 and SU-27, comprised of slaving the targeting computer to the helmet display and using FLIR as well, similar to the Apaches'. But the neat thing about the Soviet's system is that it was completely passive, with use of a variety of missles IR or radar: AA-10b/d "Alamo" or AA-11 "Archer". Also, the field of view of the IR seekers and the maneuverability of their missles had much wider envelopes than ours (US). The AA-11 uses thrust-vectoring to maneuver in such a way as to be able to pull over 12 Gs and has a range of 40 km, compared to our AIM-9M max range of about 15-20 km and maneuverability of about 9-10 Gs.

(link to Soviet missles)

The AIM-9X / look-n-shoot is a direct response to the Cold War developments by the Soviets that was above and beyond any technology we had. The system used in the MIG-29 and SU-27, comprised of slaving the targeting computer to the helmet display and using FLIR as well, similar to the Apaches'. But the neat thing about the Soviet's system is that it was completely passive, with use of a variety of missles IR or radar: AA-10b/d "Alamo" or AA-11 "Archer". Also, the field of view of the IR seekers and the maneuverability of their missles had much wider envelopes than ours (US). The AA-11 uses thrust-vectoring to maneuver in such a way as to be able to pull over 12 Gs and has a range of 40 km, compared to our AIM-9M max range of about 15-20 km and maneuverability of about 9-10 Gs.

(link to Soviet missles)

The AIM9X is late, and it is not state of the art. A true tribute to the royally fscked up air force procurement process. I seem to recall that lockmart and elbit both set some speed records during the python 4 integration on the F-16. It was supposed to have been (rumored anyway) a real model fast track development effort.

Also, one of the reason the Israelis have done so well in joint exercises is that they CAN take HOBS shots. The US deployment of such a system would just level the playing field a bit rather than give American pilots an advantage.

1)Liberally pepper your post with oversimplified pseudoscientific pablum such as "...And, according to the World Health Org, only 31 people were killed in Chernobyl" thereby craftily distracting your audience's attention away from any actual facts about the true magnitude of the disaster. For instance that annoying little statistic of Thyroid cancer(yes I did specifically pick a site from the WHO as a jab at your laughably out of context quote) incidence increasing by oh, 10 times or so. Or maybe the statement by the Board on Effects of Ionizing Radiation and the International Commission on Radiation Protection that the collective dose of 600,000 person-Sieverts released from Chernobyl to the population of the USSR would correspond to 24,000 additional deaths(from the Federation of American Scientists) in that area?

2)Proclaim your unquestioned infinite knowledge on all things related to the topic at hand: "In Yucca mountain, the waste is stored inside these metal casks, which are in turn inside an ultra-thick concrete subterrainean room. Also, the storage place is 2,000 feet above the water table, so you're OK there." Phew good thing we have people like you to tell us such important things lest we waste millions paying doctors of geology to try to figure out such things.

3)Regurgitate amateurish propaganda supporting your cause which contains self-parodying scare tactics aimed at any opposing viewpoints: "Coal naturally contains some thorium and uranium. When you burn coal, this is realesed into the air. We burn so much fscking coal that we realease around 150 thousand tons of uranium and 350 thousand tons of thorium!!!". It's important to remember that while using this shoe-in of a tactic to attain your +5 that you should ignore all obvious holes in your strawman theory such as the fact that coal has BACKGROUND levels of radiation, and burning it has negligible effect on concentrating this radiation. By Spike hay's logic I could argue that the millions of human bodies incinerated every year in cremation ceremonies increases the radioactive pollution of the atmosphere and soil because of all that Carbon-14 and Potassium-40 released when your body burns. Why it must be thousands of tones total every year!!

4)Finally if all else fails, just make a link like he does to to the nearest nut job you can find whose home page should have the latest instructions on "How to Find Osama bin Laden with guaranteed anonymity" apparently using some whacked out pin number conspiracy theory or some such scheme.

That's all! Your're on your way to karma whore heaven! (p.s. i'm already at 50 so I don't really give a crap about what happens to this post)

I was witness to a darwin award winner who unlatched a waveguide and looked into the rectangle end. He said "hey, there's hot air blowing out of here". I looked at him to see what he was talking about, then destroyed two klystrons by slapping the main power breaker. Klystrons need cooling air to prevent them from cracking and implodeing after the driving voltage is removed from them.

This warm air is also bled into the waveguide itself to drive out any moisture that would impede your signal.

You see, the guy looked straight into a waveguide pumping out 2000 watts at 4.7 Ghz that required 30,000 watts of 480 volt 3 phase AC to generate.

And that dude, well, that dude was dead before he finished the word "here"

AN/TRC-170 V2 Army/Airforce Mobile Troposcatter. Baddest pair of micky mouse ears you will ever see on a battle field. Two 81 db gain 10 foot dishes, 10 feet in the air, and 10 feet apart. 560 foot danger zone in front of the dishes. After a few days transmitting, the ground in front of the dishes would be littered with the corpses of birds, rodents and the scavengers that came for the easy meals.

The soviets could still build some more protons if they wanted, the designs are still current.

The proton is still in service - but it can't lift anything close to 30 tons. My point was that the highest-capacity version of the proton replacement (the angara) will supposedly lift 30 tons to LEO or 6 tons to GEO (naturally the latter spec is the important one).

-Isaac

Here's a link to some cool drawings of the N1's. Of course, these drawings mean nothing. My theory is that the Soviet moon mission was as faked as the US one. Here's photographic proof that the N1's were only about 15 ft tall! Seeing is believing. You do believe me, don't you?

Firstly, IANARS.

You substitute one fallacy (ad authoritem) with another (begging the question)...

Anyhow, the big difference between a nuclear rocket and a chemical rocket "blowing up" (to use a technical term) is that while a chemical rocket is loading to the gills with volatile fuel, a nuke rocket will just sputter out. While there's pressure in the engine, there's not a office building full of volatile fuel in the equation. This makes nuke rockets somewhat safer than conventional rockets.

The worst case scenario, of course, is a catastophic mid-launch failure that scatters nuclear material over a wide area. I've read conflicting reports, though one source for which I have tremendous respect, physicist Michio Kaku has argued vehemently against nuke rockets for this reason.

It seems to me, however, that this is not an insurmountable problem. Believe it or not, it is possible for items to survive ground zero of a nucelar explosion relatively unscathed. Now steel spheres are a long way from a working nuclear core, but perhaps we let ourselves be emotionally carried away by the visual violence of an explosion: "nothing could survive that." Well, yes some things could survive that. Perhaps we just need to build engine cores that could...

Great info, thanks!

Just for comparison, the US's largest conventional bomb is the BLU-82B (aka Commando Vault in Vietnam and Daisy Cutter in Afghanistan). It weighs 7.5 tons, with 6.3 tons of explosive (84% bomb!). It's pushed out the back of a C130 cargo plane and is optimized for destruction and ground level without digging a crater (original purpose was to clear foliage to make helicopter landing pads). It costs $27,318 and 225 were produced (mostly in the 70's).

If you want to build your own, you can get the explosive here

So, for comparison (aprox.) exposive/weight ratio of W54 davey crockett=880, of BLU-82B daisy cuttter=0.84

I don't understand why it wouldn't; if they can make a chemical bomb that penetrates that much stuff and functions, I'm sure a fission device could. The physics of the impact would be the same, but the required explosive payload would be smaller for the fission device.

That's the key: do more with less. Nuclear weapons weren't developed because of their Eeeevil factor, but because they can deliver such a large punch with such a relatively diminutive package. Before the Trinity test there was the "100 Ton" calibration experiment. 108 tons of high explosive was detonated to examine the effects of fission fallout and instrument calibration. 108 tons of high explosive was huge compared to the Trinity Gadget, even though the Gadget was 185 times as powerful.

I don't understand why it wouldn't; if they can make a chemical bomb that penetrates that much stuff and functions, I'm sure a fission device could. The physics of the impact would be the same, but the required explosive payload would be smaller for the fission device.

That's the key: do more with less. Nuclear weapons weren't developed because of their Eeeevil factor, but because they can deliver such a large punch with such a relatively diminutive package. Before the Trinity test there was the "100 Ton" calibration experiment. 108 tons of high explosive was detonated to examine the effects of fission fallout and instrument calibration. 108 tons of high explosive was huge compared to the Trinity Gadget, even though the Gadget was 185 times as powerful.

but i thought any nation that was amassing weapons of mass destruction was terrorist?

No only the "rogue nations" that haven't joined "the club" yet. You know the ones that Bush pointed to in his speech a couple of weeks back. Bascially, if you are a country without nukes and you try to bust into the nuclear club, you are a rogue nation and likely harboring terrorists... Nations who already have the bomb can do whatever they want with them. Assuming they don't break any treaties. Oh wait, we can just pull out of any treaties that are too restrictive.

This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).

This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).

This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).

This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).

This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).

This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).

This place has all you want to know about the "Golden Age" of American nuclear testing.

This is a picture of the Hardtack II / De Baca test, which was a small nuclear gravity bomb (11.3 inches in diameter, 15 inches long, weight 66 lb). It had a "disappointing" 2.2 kTon yield.

Even more interesting is Upshot-Knothole / Grable which was a nuclear cannon shell.

How small did they get? Here's the W54 (Davey Crockett) warhead, normally used as a rocket mortar round. It weighs 50 pounds, and has a yield of 22 TONS. Not Kilotons. Not megatons. Tons.

Of course small nuclear devices are possible, even workable. Not every miltary explosive needs to be like Castle/Bravo (the largest nuclear device the US has tested).

The B61-11 can't penetrate more than 20 feet of dry earth according to this report.

I too was somewhat surprised that underground Nukes weren't used in Afghanistan. The attack on the WTC was the equivalent in destructiveness of a small (100t-1kt) nuke, and used on civilians. That the US didn't use Nukes in return is a sign that someone up there was thinking. A bit of research shows why they didn't use them. Have a look at report called "Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons". The standard penetrator (B61-11) has piss-poor penetrating performance. Even a 100t nuke needs to be 70 metres down to avoid contamination.

Most of the Great Unwashed out there in slashdotland don't make any distinction between a 100t nuke and a 50 Mt nuke. But it makes a big difference to people nearby. For example, if you're 100 km downwind of a 100t underground nuke, you'll only detect it by watching CNN. If you're 100km downwind of a 1 Mt groundburst, you're dead from fallout. It's Ten Thousand Times more powerful. Both India and Pakisatan let off dozens of kiloton-range weapons not so long ago. Using nukes doesn't mean Instant Thermonuclear Global Death.

For everything you ever wanted to know about Nukes, see the High Energy Weapons Archive. The Federation of American Scientists may not be the most neutral and unbiased of commentators (very Liberal), but the facts they base their commentary on are unimpeachable. Anyone who pretends to hold an opinion worth anything should read the facts first.

Incinerating Baghdad - and a whole heap of babies, schoolkids etc - would be a really bad idea, literally unthinkable even if Saddam Hussein nuked the US. But using nuclear bunker-busters to target the people who pushed the button, rather than leaving them untouched and massacring civilians, that makes sense to me. And obviously to the US Military too.