Pentagon deploys low-yield nuclear weapon for first time: report

Discussion in 'Security & Defenses' started by Mrlucky, Feb 5, 2020.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Those are designed for chemical and biological agents, not radiation.

    About the only thing you can "wear" to protect you against radiation is an M1 tank.

    And so long as the vehicle itself is not irradiated, then yes. Actually scrubbing them down with STB really does do a great job of removing any particles that are on the equipment itself.
     
  2. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes but it wasn't just NBC, it was what we were supposed to wear for radiation too. Made me laugh every time the siren went off.

    Reminded me of the drills in school of crawling under your desk.

    What was funny about washing the trucks is that none of us would be there to do it if a nuke went off anywhere near us.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2022
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,612
    Likes Received:
    11,197
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is also true that very small nuclear weapons are much more "dirty" (leaving behind long-term radioactive contamination) relative to the power of their blast or level of temporary radiation.
     
  4. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your assertion about the bunker is true... if the blast is very far away.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First of all you have to consider what most "field bunkers" are constructed of. And I am talking about the ones placed all over almost any military site in a combat zone. Those are normally large concrete sewer pipes with 4" or thicker walls. And on top of that anywhere from 1-4 feet of dirt. Those are just the typical ones that are found about every few hundred meters or so at almost any overseas base.

    [​IMG]

    Well, to block gamma rays, you really need a specially constructed location. It takes several feet of concrete, dirt, or steel to block them, so no point even discussing those. And those are the deadliest of radioactive rays or particles.

    Now next is the x-rays. Those actually do not take much to shield somebody from, just 3-4 inches of concrete or dirt. So if somebody is even inside of one of those field expedient bunkers, they are protected.

    The last things are the alpha and beta particles. Those are common components of fallout, and really have no penetration capability. Your clothing is enough to shield against those, the largest danger is either excessive exposure or taking them into your body (which is the real reason for MOPP and gas masks after a nuclear explosion).

    It must be realized, the very idea behind "neutron bombs" is that they were low yield devices, typically in the 1 kiloton range. They were airbursts, so the blast and heat radius was small, but the initial burst of radiation (specifically Gamma Rays) is immense.

    But the actual mortality blast and heat radius of an explosion like that is very small. Actually only around .4 miles (.6 kilometers) from the site of detonation. And even with the increased doses of radiation, the fatality range in the open is less than 2 kilometers. If in a bunker, figure around 600 meters or so as the x-rays have been almost completely eliminated and the individual has only been exposed to a reduced dose of gamma rays.

    To give an idea, if you are at one end of the race track of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, the other end is .8 miles. In the open you will take a good dose of radiation, as well as injuries from flying debris. But it is not the "instakill" that so many think it would be. And with enough warning and even one of those field-expedient bunkers is within range to run to, a person should be fine. All x-rays would have been blocked, and over half of the gamma rays through distance and the bunker (even greater reduction if there are obstacles like buildings between the individual and the blast).

    Now somebody even in a bunker would take a good dose of gamma rays, but some of that will still be attenuated so the chances of a fatal dose is greatly reduced.

    Now if one is talking a more conventional nuclear blast, that is something completely different. There, the immediate radioactivity is much less of a threat, it is the initial blast, heat, and debris that are the big killers. And of course as they are detonated closer to ground level they create a huge cloud of fallout that will cause even more exposure until one gets out of that radius. And once again, fallout is almost entirely alpha and beta particles. So long as none comes in contact with your skin, or is not inhaled or ingested one is fairly safe from those.

    And so long as one does not take a massive dose in the open, there are treatments available. There is potassium iodine, Prussian blue, and DTPA for the particles one might have taken in their body. For Gamma and X-rays, the big dangers there short and medium term is blood cell death, and a compromised immune system. Blood transfusions and medications to increase blood production can help counter that, until the bone marrow is naturally replaced with new marrow and resumes normal production. And antibiotics to help prevent infections. And we know those work because some of the responders at Chernobyl took some almost insane levels of gamma and x-rays. With reduced lifespans but they were able to recover.

    The long term effects typically take a decade or more to develop. My grandfather did take a high dose as he was on one of the first ships to arrive at Nagasaki for occupation duty. And he still lived into his 80s.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2022
  6. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok... here's a short lesson on the deployment of TACTICAL nukes from an ex-Commander of a nuclear capable artillery firing battery. (Excuse me if some details are missing... its been awhile.) First, my M110A2 8-inch howitzer battery could deliver four yields... 2.5 kilotons, 5 kt, 7.5 kt and 15 kt (Hiroshima was 15 kt). We physically assembled each round for the desired yield. Later M752 rounds became available where it was all digitized and yields were set with the push of a button(s). It took hours to assemble the weapon properly. With the M752, all you did was screw the fuse into a briefcase-like thing, and set the fuse. You could also disable the weapon that way. Before the M752 we had to blow it all up with conventional explosives to disable it.

    When a target was designated, we had to plan the mission. We rarely practiced to target anything that was hardened. In today's world, there are more precision ways to engage things like bunkers... and fortified positions are better off left alone and bypassed anyway. (That's a lesson the world learned with the Maginot Line long ago.) Since radiation is the primary casualty producing component of a tactical nuke, that is the primary focus of nuclear fire planning. In the "Commander's Guidance" you get his intent. This will spell out the desired outcome of the mission, acceptable standard for civilian casualties, etc. There are three levels of effects to be considered: "Instant" casualties (not the correct term... I forget the right one) which create casualties instantly. Then there are "delayed" casualties (again, not the correct term) which produce radiation casualties in about three days. Finally there is "latent lethality" (correct term this time) which results in radiation casualties in 2-3 weeks. The idea is to detonate the device behind the FEBA (Front Edge of the Battle Area) so that troops headed to the front will get sick just as they arrive at the "front". Distance is measured in time... three days from the FEBA... two weeks from the FEBA, etc. The rule of thumb is that it takes two Soldiers worth of assets to evacuate each Soldier casualty. So the idea is to have the enemy get sick just as they arrive at the FEBA.

    There are other considerations:
    - Ground bursts result in "militarily significant fallout" which contaminates the area. That denies the are to friendly as well as enemy maneuver, so it should usually be avoided. Air bursts (high enough that the fireball does not touch the ground) essentially preclude such fallout and while damaging the enemy, leave the maneuver space free of contamination so that friendly forces can traverse it freely. Almost all missions were envisioned to be airbursts. One significant exception was Fulda Gap. "Fulda Gap" was a geographic anomaly on the East German- West German border which was flat and open. It was expected that when the Russians attacked, large numbers of their forces would use this opening to advance. Special nuke missions were planned using small yields to provide "tree blow down" to block their advance.
    - Avoidance of civilian ("noncombatant") casualties is always a priority goal. The Commander will give his guidance as to acceptable civilian casualties. The planner will use a template which indicates radiation levels and move that over the area until irradiation of the enemy is maximized and irradiation of civilians is minimized. Civilians are often surprised at this process, since it means that weapon is usually not aimed directly at the enemy, but at an offset position.

    We never considered long term effects. Those are political considerations, not tactical ones. But I must relate that I had an uncle who was involved with nuke testing after WWII. The idiots had no clue about the effects of radiation and routinely placed troops well within danger limits during testing. My uncle was one such Soldier. I have a photo of Omar Bradley pinning his "Eagles" (promotion to Colonel) on his pajamas as he sat up on his death bed at Walter Reed.
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And once again, how far away does one have to be?

    People in basements only 100 yards from ground zero at Hiroshima survived with no significant radiation exposure. We know that against small blasts bunkers are highly effective.

    You know, a good tool for something like this is nukemap.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    Feel free to give it a try. Maybe drop a 15 kt nuke in San Francisco. The danger of fallout outside of about a mile or so is 100 rads per hour or less. And the Oakland Bay Bridge is still standing. A very survivable amount actually. And I know about the planned uses for most of those, "area denial". Often places like passes, river crossings, things like that. To prevent an army from passing through it, or to significantly slow them down as they do.

    But the actual fallout from those small nukes is not all that great. Want to know what the real dangers are of nukes? Take San Francisco once again, and drop in a single 20 mt warhead from an R-26 missile. Now that fireball reaches from downtown to Fort Point and Treasure Island. Most everything from San Mateo to San Rafel and Berkley is highly radiated. And high levels of radioactive fallout will be reaching up into Idaho. Against that it is likely that even hardened bunkers will survive, the blasts are just that massive. Thankfully, nobody even plans on using bombs that big anymore.

    Yes, I know those plans. And none of the uses of even tactical nukes were for built up civilian cities. They were for use on force assemblies, material locations, or to deny them from passing through an area.

    And my hat is off to your uncle, yes many times they were tested in a manner we now know is unsafe. But then again, there is still a lot that we do not understand. And some may take only low to moderate levels of radiation, and die shortly afterwards from the effect. Then others like say Tsutomu Yamaguchi. Who was less than 3 kilometers from ground zero in Hiroshima where he worked as an engineer. After the blast, he continued on to his next planned inspection stop, the shipyard at Nagasaki. Where he was once again less than 3 km from the blast.

    He died back in 2010 at the age of 93.

    The thing is, there is no hard and fast rule about how radiation affects the body. Many are affected by low amounts, many survive almost insane amounts of it. And for why, they still just do not know.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  8. AARguy

    AARguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2021
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    6,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The effect of nuclear weapons depends on many variables. The most important are the altitude of the detonation and the yield. Hiroshima was about 15 kilotons (kt). Before we retired them, US Army tactical artillery nukes came in yields of 1.25kt and 2.5kt for M109 (155mm) and 2.5kt, 5.0kt, 7.5kt, and 15kt for M110A2 (8') artillery. Larger yields were available with Army medium range LANCE missiles and longer range PERSHING II missiles.

    Remember, we're talking Army here... winning on a battlefield, not destroying nations. The first step is to decide what your objective is. Generally, you want to cause the most casualties to destroy your enemy. Understand that the primary casualty-causing component of a nuke is radiation, not blast. With that in mind, you would prefer to cause "latent lethality" in rear areas. Judging battlefield distances in time, not actual distance, if you irradiate the enemy a week back or so and allow him to arrive at the FEBA (Front Edge of the Battle Area) as he gets sick, it generally takes two healthy soldiers to evacuate a sick one. In that way you cause the most casualties at the critical point without actually aiming at that point.

    Fallout is to be avoided, since it contaminates and denies an area to YOU as well as the enemy. To avoid fallout you should ensure that the fireball does not touch the ground. Fallout is made of irradiated STUFF. If the fireball touches the ground it sucks up dirt and everything else and becomes fallout. An airburst high enough to prevent the fireball touching the ground, limits the amount of STUFF that turns into fallout and limits contamination. You can maneuver through the gained ground.

    Strategic nukes kill cities. Tactical nukes win battles. Totally different subjects.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  9. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We used to drop nukes on our own troops all the time.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  10. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I missed that one. I know we exposed all the Gulf War troops to DU and other toxins by way of burn pits and more, and of course my generation in Vietnam was exposed to Agent Orange, but I don't recall our guys being nuked.
     

Share This Page