Can a Hardened Nuclear Missile Silo Be Disable With A conventional weapons strike?

No, you don't.[/quote]

You said:

It is obvious to everyone that your knowledge comes from Pukipedia.

You also proved you've never seen a nuclear warhead.

By your own admission, you're totally ignorant of variable yield nuclear warheads. The Media favorite is "dial-a-yield" but since you've never done maintenance on a variable yield nuclear warhead you wouldn't know that.

The reason we have variable yield nuclear warheads is because the fusion fuel is in liquid form, not a solid form, but you don't know that because you've never seen -- meaning touched with the hands -- any nuclear warhead of any kind.

The Pershing II, air/ground/sea-launched cruise missile warheads, and a number of gravity bombs are all variable yield.

For the record, Puki has it wrong. The PII was 0.3 kt to 100 kt and the cruise missile warheads were 0.3 kt to 80 kt.

When I arm a PII, I hook up the talk-box, tell the bomb to wake up and get ready to rock and roll, and then dial in the yield. If I see it for 100 kt, nothing else needs be done.

If I set it for 60 kt, then once the sensors determine the warhead has reached a certain altitude and is traveling at a certain speed, it will initiate the arming process.

The fusion fuel is liquid Deuterium kept under pressure in a reservoir.

The valve opens and enough Deuterium is bled off and vented to generate 40 kt of fusion, and with the 20 kt fission trigger, gives a yield of 60 kt.

If I want 20 kt, then all the Deuterium is bled off and vented.

If I want 10 kt, then all the Deuterium is bled off, and not all of the plastic explosive lenses fire.

That's how yields between 0.3 kt and 20 kt are achieved, by manipulating the plastic explosive lens on the linear implosion device.

It works the same the cruise missile warheads, except there's only enough Deuterium for 60 kt by fusion and with the 20 kt fission trigger, gives a max yield of 80 kt.

Since you don't understand how nuclear weapons work, you don't need to know the number of plastic explosive lenses, or the maintenance cycle to replace the Deuterium reservoir, or how to perform NVCD for a PII or BGM-109G.

You can stop trying to impress us, because it's not working. We know frauds when we see them.

 

Heck, even somebody who can read should know that.

One of the key points in the novel "Sum of All Fears" was specifically that. After recovering a "lost" plutonium fission bomb, it is reworked by terrorists into a boosted fission device with tritium. But they kill the specialist who was helping them with it before he finished the most critical step, bleeding off the buildup of helium that is a side-effect of tritium decay (tritium has a half life of 4500 days - just over 10 years) caused a significant amount to become Helium-3. Which had the effect of disrupting the fission reaction and causing a "fizzle".

This is because although Helium-3 (2p1n) is a stable element, the natural state is Helium-4 (2P2N). Therefore it often tries to "capture" stray neutrons, which has the effect of attenuating a fission explosion. And although H3 is a rare element it can be found in nature (natural gas and lithium deposits are high in it), but most is made by simply setting aside tritium (a byproduct of nuclear power production), then allowed to decay and then bled off. One of the reasons for the increased scarcity (as well as increased cost) of helium in the last decade or so is a side-effect of the START treaty. With the reduction of the number of warheads, the bleeding off of helium-3 has reduced the amount available for sale.

Which is why the only plant producing tritium was activated in Tennessee in 2015. Tritium has a great many other uses, and sells for $30,000 a gram. And it is still widely used, especially in military equipment and watches because of its radioluminescence.



Some of us actually do know about such things, and it is also obvious that some have absolutely no clue about anything and they just make it all up.

 

The limits to my knowledge of missile defense mirror the limits to your knowledge of nuclear weapons and stealth.

I at least acknowledge the limits to my knowledge.

I didn't merely wave it all away. I explained the reasons why you are wrong and I am right.

I have not been proved to be wrong. You are the one who is wrong (and repeatedly so).

 

Funny how you are the one who keeps making untrue statements.

Given your unrelenting barrage of untrue claims, you are not qualified to assess people's knowledge.

You are the one who is making untrue claims about them.

I have not admitted such a thing, and I am in fact quite aware of them.

I know the term dial-a-yield. But I have no idea if it is the media's favorite.

Wrong. The fusion fuel in our thermonuclear weapons is solid.

And wrong again. The reason why we have variable warheads is so we can tailor the size of a blast to limit collateral damage.

The reason why "I don't know it" is because what you are saying isn't even remotely true.

Wrong. The Pershing 2 warheads were the ones that were .3 to 80.

It is surprising that you have managed to be wrong so many times in such a short sentence.

The fusion fuel in the weapon is solid.

The reservoir contains gas, not liquid.

That gas is both tritium (which you have previously claimed is not used in our weapons) and deuterium.

It is NOT the fusion fuel for the weapon. It merely boosts the fission.

Wrong again. Both lenses always fire. If only one lens fired, there would be zero nuclear yield.

And wrong yet again. The lenses are not made of plastic explosive. They are made of plastic bonded explosive. Perhaps this last correction is nitpicking compared to all your other wildly untrue statements about nuclear weapons, but the term plastic explosive does have a very well known military meaning that is contrary to what is used in nuclear weapons.

I know exactly how nuclear weapons work. You are the one who is spouting an endless stream of untrue statements about them.

Maybe not. But as it happens I do know the number of lenses: two.

No. Given your ignorance of nuclear weapons, you would not be able to identify a fraud.

I can identify them though. And I've managed to identify a couple.

 

Given all your untrue statements and all my true statements, it is pretty clear which is which.

 

Non-nuclear EMP is the wave (pun intended) of the future. Weapons like CHAMP will disable nukes and their delivery systems before, during, and after launch.

 

Like most military equipment, nukes and their delivery systems are hardened against EMP.

 

Its almost impossible to harden against EMP. You can harden against radiation because radiation is PARTICLES (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc.). But EMP is MAGNETISM, not particles. The entire earth can't shield against magnetism generated in the molten core of the earth... that's why a compass points to a pole. The only way to shield against EMP is by encasing the item in a Faraday Cage. And once inside a Faraday cage, you can't access the item anymore. Even a tiny hole to accommodate a power or data cable compromises the shielding and leaves the item vulnerable.

 

On old system this would be true. with optical systems and some new ones I won't discuss here far less so. The development of optical memory storage has made even older systems viable again and missile guidance systems pretty much immune.

Refitting older systems has been going on for over 30 years; here is a 1992 report on upgrading the Patriot system:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjT5sfToYz5AhVyrmoFHehGARYQFnoECCUQAQ&url=https://media.defense.gov/1992/Jun/17/2001714611/-1/-1/1/92-098.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1AxQR_lm3oQyJhYYVc9THb

This link goes to a pdf download, for those afraid of them. It's a DoD report.

General Dynamics just got a contract with Raytheon to upgrade the optics some Navy interceptor missiles.

 

Optical systems are pretty much immune alright, but optics in my experience are usually for data transfer, not data processing. If printed circuits have been replaced with optical circuitry, I'll claim ignorance. But when I retired just five years ago, fiber optics were used to replace wires, not microcircuits. Thanks for the link. I have some reading to do.

 

Your link concerns data STORAGE on an optical disk. The subject is about a Congressional inquiry regarding the source of those disks. The worry is about depending on a foreign source. The whole memo is about data STORAGE on an optical disk.

Data PROCESSING is done by microcircuits which are totally vulnerable to EMP.

Much of what is published about EMP is designed to placate civilians and non-technical types. The real threat is massive. But its a two-way street. They can use it... so can we.

 

People like you are the reason we can't build the energy production facilities that we really need in this country to end the arguing about "fossil fuels", and "renewable resources", and "climate change", and all the ancillary things. You're stuck 50 or more years in the past when that particular n-word comes up and refuse to educate yourself as to the realities of nuclear energy in the 22nd Century and beyond.

Nuclear is the answer and the future.

 

Then I suggest you research a Faraday Cage. I mean, it is only 186 year old technology after all.

Oh, and EMP is not magnetic, it is electromagnetic. And magnetism is also simple to resolve with magnets actually, not that it is a particular hazard to electronics other than magnetic media.

 

Old is not necessarily bad. Round wheels are old and still very useful. Bolometer (uncooled thermal) technology is very old and is now becoming the future of military night vision. The M2 50cal ("Ma Deuce") machine gun is ancient... and still in use on M1 tanks. The Constitution is over 200 years old and a key to our national existence. So "old" isn't necessarily bad. That attitude leads me to believe that you are very young.
I know quite a bit about how a Faraday cage works. I hold a BS in Electrical Engineering from West Point... how about YOU? I also have extensive experience in DoD battlefield electronics from night vision, to lasers (I hold a patent for a piezoelectric laser aiming system), and more. How about you? You tried to convince me that optical systems will render missiles and nukes immune to EMP and provided a link to a Congressional inquiry about foreign sourcing of optical disks, which are a data storage medium, not a processing system at all.
Now you criticize tfacts because they are "old". Well, I have news for you. Physics is Physics. Its rules rules are immutable and unchanging. F=MA, V = f(lambda), and the Third Law of Thermodynamics are old... and locked in concrete in our world for now and the future. (I love talking about Physics... I'm a certified Physics teacher in California.)
So if you wish to refute Physical Laws... you have to do better than "they are old".

 

I did?



Funny, please enlighten me because I can't remember ever doing that, or even that it is possible.

And I do not criticize anything, Faraday Cages are pretty much 100% effective against EMP.

In other words, I have no idea what you are even trying to say here, and I doubt you do either.

 

I was with you until the childish insult. Democrats cannot communicate without throwing in a childish insult. That invalidates your whole post.

 

Uh, what in the hell are you talking about?

I am not a Democrat. But I guess that is your handy-dandy insult on anybody that does not agree with you.

When in the hell did I say anything like you said I did?

I still have no idea what in the hell you are talking about, and as I said, you apparently don't either. You made several charges against me that were not true at all, and your response when called on that is to throw around insults and run away.

Got it. Have a nice day.

 

And the Patriot also went to fiber optic cables and other optical switches as they became available, along with most other weapon systems.

The cheap equipment is; the newer stuff has optical switching circuits, and as I pointed out the older stuff gets upgraded as time and money allows. EMP isn't going to do squat against optical systems, 'electro-magnetic waves' or not.

Much of it is completely accurate, and much more of it isn't published yet, which means 'the public' doesn't know squat about most of what is going on. And, Red China has stolen quite a bit of it already, and they in turn sell it to Russia and Iran. Given their general intellectual arrogance and inability to implement decent quality controls, I'm not too worried about their 'advances' for then next decade at least, anyway. But, yes there are some things that troops need to be trained to do manually anyway.

My cite was just an example of what has been going on for a long time; it's called 'R&D', and it has moved at a rapid pace; totally optical circuits are already up and running in all kinds of applications. They are however too expensive for most and it's not really necessary at the consumer level anyway.

How many armed forces around the world are there that we need to be worried about that? Not many. Most of those who do have that capability are our allies, and even using our stuff. Did we have any 'EMP' issues with Iraq or Syria? Anybody who sets off a nuke like that would be toast in half an hour tops, and those who have them know it, so it is not a worry,

 

Your site was about foreign versus domestic sources.
I have spent decades in R&D with folks like Boeing and Lockheed... you sound like a shoe salesman.
Optical devices are great for STORAGE and TRANSMISSION... not for PROCESSING.
Iran will use nukes as soon as they have enough of them to destroy the GREAT SATAN (USA). One or two would just be pulling on Superman's Cape and accomplish next to nothing. And radical islamists don't care about becoming "toast". Their focus is on getting into PARADISE and killing infidels is the key. This life is simply a "foyer" on the way to PARADISE. (By the way, that was the exact word used by my "I-T" (Interpreter-Translator) when he explained it all to me in Iraq.

 

And again the link to 'my site' was to point out how long ago we've been updating our systems, and there is nothing wrong with using a public DoD report to do that. Nobody said that was the last thing they ever did. You sound like a kid who has to have his Mom buy his shoes for him.

You and Mushroom need to get a room together and steal each other's breakfast beers and beat up on strawmen, maybe have pillow fights and stuff.

 

Uh, you know there is a lot more involved than just "getting nukes", right?

You are aware that the longest range missile of Iran is the Emad-3, right? With a range of 1,400 kilometers. And the US is over 10,000 kilometers from Iran. And they have no bombers to carry one. So how in the hell are they going to "destroy" the US, if they can't even get their bombs there if they had them?

This is why I laugh at so many posts in here. They are absolutely full of demagoguery but show absolutely no grasp of the actual reality.

But go ahead and let us all know when Iran has around 3,000 nukes, as well as the delivery systems to get them to the US.

You brag about working at aerospace companies. Great, good for you. Apparently they did not teach you to understand the absolute basics needed in creating a "Nuclear Triad". You know, one of the most important parts, which is delivery systems.



There is the threat range that a "Nuclear Iran" possesses. And notice, that is nowhere even close to the US.

So go back into R&D, and leave serious discussions about reality to those that actually understand the difference.

 

You miss the obvious.

1) Any nation hat can put a satellite into orbit (as Iran has) is a threat to drop a nuclear warhead on any target at international ranges (which is why the U.S. freaked out about Sputnik).

2) Increasing missile ranges is one of the most rudimentary parts of missile technology. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. managed to do so in just a few years

3) There is always the option of mounting nuclear missiles on cargo ships and launching them from just offshore of U.S. targets.

 

Your "DoD Report" had absolutely no technical information in it at all. It was a bout a Congressional inquiry about using foreign sources of supply. Sorry kid, I have worked in Defense R&D since since I retired from the Army years ago. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

You should be sorry you invented such a lame strawman to beat on. You claiming somebody else has no clue is pretty funny. Nobody cares where you mopped floors and washed out beakers one time.

 

Somewhere in the Cold War we decided that missiles (or some other element of the TRIAD) was required to deliver nukes. That mindset remains to this day. At that time it was all about getting the nuke on target before the other guy could, possibly eliminating his nuke threat before he could launch. All of that is OBE (Overcome By Events) now.
Years ago, we decided that there were greater threats. As an Army Officer at the time, I was involved in an analysis of one such scenario that went like this:
- Nuke(s) could be placed on fishing boats, trawlers, cargo ships, etc. that were controlled by Iran, but not necessarily flagged in Iran. The schedules of these ships could be coordinated to enter US ports at or near the same time. The nukes onboard could be detonated at a given moment to devestate our coastal cities.
- At the time, Iran had stationed its champion Naval ship, the "Kharg", in mid Atlantic to serve as a resupply and/or rescue ship for the recently renewed sea traffic between Iran and Cuba. The Kharg was an amazing ship. It had many capabilities to serve many purposes. Iran isn't the USA and had to build multipurpose ships. It had elevators to enable it to serve as a helicopter tender. There was speculation that these elevators could be used to raise SCUD TEL's (Transporter Erector Launchers) from below decks. This would allow launching of SCUD's to the interior of America, detonating nukes which would devastate the USA with EMP. It was a brilliant plan, since our missile defenses are designed to counter incoming missiles, not one going away and up into the stratosphere.
I must note that the Kharg was destroyed last year by a mysterious fire. (It smelled much like a Special Operations OP.)

Your analysis is deeply rooted in Cold War assumptions. The Cold ar is long gone and we face totally new threats today. The TRIAD was predicated on the assumption that one side could neutralize the enemy's nukes before they could launch. That is now an irrelevant issue. Iran is in no hurry. The mullahs don't care about retaliation. Their goal is to get to PARADISE by killing infidels. Their end game isn't about this life at all. This life is just a "foyer" on the way to PARADISE.

Ships as delivery systems will do just fine.

By the way, I did some work with the "Cargo Cats", a governmental team that is responsible for inspecting incoming cargo in the Port of Los Angeles. They told me only 3% of cargo is actually inspected, mostly after docking for sometime.