US to test 700-tonne explosive (Mushroom Cloud over Las Vegas)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/30/060330162648.wxde5ocl.html

The US military plans to detonate a 700 tonne explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake" that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said.

"I don't want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," said James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Tegnelia said the test was part of a US effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

"We have several very large penetrators we're developing," he told defense reporters.

Looks like Iran will be the October surprise for '06.

[MadMaddie]

1. Why would they do this near a populated city?

This is insane....

[slackmaster]

3. It would be hard to find a place remote enough that nobody would see it

There is a lot of empty space near Las Vegas.

[Minnesota Libra]

4. Exactly that - to see the affects on a populated area - oh crap!! nt

[medeak]

10. Nevada test site is nearby

I grew up there...we would count how long it took to feel shock wave

[kenny blankenship]

13. Why do flyovers for NASCAR events?

Rule the globalized masses with displays appealing to sadism, alternating with displays calculated to instill terror.

[Nevernose]

14. 100 miles away, at the nuclear test site. Relatively safe.

Probably the safest place to test it. Not that using it at all is particularly good idea...

[Demeter]

22. As Long As They Don't Kick Up Any Radioactive Dust, Maybe

Sounds like a stupid plan to me, but then, I'm just a human being, don't mind me.

[Syncronaut Seven]

29. Ummm.... They're going to kick up radioactive dust

That sand is hot all the way to St. George.

[wordpix]

125. no shit-if they're gonna bust bunkers, they're gonna kick up some hot dust

[katty]

119. a 'dry run' Rehearsal for Iran-why NOW?

[leQ]

120. i think you've stumbled upon something everybody else seems to be missing

[TankLV]

132. Not really. We are still trying to get the government to pay for medical

treatment and damages from the 1950's and 60's!

The DEMOCRATS authored and succeeded in getting the legislation passed LONG ago - but the REPUKES keep not releasing the funds!

People have died and continue to die of exposure from radiation from these 20th century tests.

[enlightenment]

24. The NTS (Nevada Test Site) is about 80 miles from LV --

depending on where you are in town (I live in LV).

Back in the day (50s and 60s) it wasn't unusual to see the mushroom clouds from town; because of the way the wind blows, though, most of the fallout dropped on southern Utah -- around St. George. I think there are still some lawsuits going on over the effects of that little gift.

Testing was originally moved to Nevada from the Pacific because the government feared that the 'bad guys' would spy on what we were doing -- they continued testing the really big boys on the ocean (otherwise, LV wouldn't be here). After 1963 they moved the testing underground -- I believe the last US nuclear test was in 1992, and I'm not sure it was in Nevada.

If they do set off an above ground blast -- with an actual nuclear weapon, like they used to do, they are violating the Partial (or Limited) Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which banned above ground, underwater, and space testing. We did sign and ratify that one.

Seems to me they've been saying lately that "it's not really a bomb, just the parts -- and we need to make sure they still work." Personally, it it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . or has the parts, goes boom, and drops radioactive garbage in my backyard, it's a nuclear bomb -- regardless of what they call it!

[enlightenment]

34. Okay - replying to myself, but this doesn't sound like

they'll be breaking the law, since they're putting the damn thing in a tunnel. Really need to read the articles before spouting off.
Even if it is a nuke, if they set it off underground they're not in violation of the LTBT.

Does that make it okay? Hell, no. I grew up with "duck and cover" but I've never seen a mushroom cloud and I've never felt the loss. I don't want to see one now.

We really, really need to get this a*%h$#e out of office.

[Rocknrule]

133. Because Vegas is the most sinful and Gawdless city in Murika

so no big loss
:sarcasm:

[Minnesota Libra]

2. OMG, am I the only one who sees the potential for this?? nt

[Posteritatis]

33. Potential for what, exactly? (n/t)

[Minnesota Libra]

41. Once the affects of this "mushroom cloud" is known any...............

.....number of substances could be substituted in place of a supposedly harmless "mushroom cloud". Think about it and no it isn't all :tinfoilhat: stuff either.

From original post: "The US military plans to detonate a 700 tonne explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake" that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said."

[file83]

62. I don't think the prevailing winds will "send" the cloud literally over LV

I think it's just a metaphor for the visual effects of a high reaching mushroom cloud, from the right location, it'll "look" like the cloud is over Vegas.

[jsamuel]

77. no offense, and I am not necessarily agreeing with the other poster, but..

you might want to rethink what you just said. Radiation travels at the speed of light, so if you can see a radioactive mushroom cloud, you are getting hit with the radiation. Plus, winds took Russian radioactive dust all the way to the US in 3 days.

[file83]

78. But this is a conventional bomb, there is no radiation. Are we talking

about the same thing?

A "mushroom cloud" does not = "radiation". It just means there is a tremendous amount of heat rising through the atmosphere, in this case, it's conventional ordinance making the cloud, not a nuclear fission reaction.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

110. The area where they will be teasting the bomb is where they....

...used to conduct above-ground and below-ground nuclear testing. The surface soils are still very radioactive, "hot", in other words, and will be blown up into the atmosphere by the testing of this new bomb. Where that dust and debris will go downwind will be determined by the prevailing wind directions at the time of the test.

IMHO, the mushroom cloud from this test will be the equivalent to that from exploding a "dirty bomb".

[Xithras]

112. Most of the test sites aren't very radioactive anymore.

High intensity radiation has a very short shelf life, and most of the test sites have already seen the worst of the radiation dissipate. These sites will have detectable radiation levels for thousands of years, but at levels low enough that they are no longer an immediate threat. Heck, the bomb sites are even open to the public for TOURS if you're morbid enough to want to see them: http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/tours.htm

[wordpix]

126. I have yet to see a NV report with any data on radioactiv'y of soil

so I'm skeptical. This bomb is bound to kick up lots of radioactive dust. OK, so maybe the soil is low level radioactivity but if you or your child is breathing it, it's not good for you.

[file83]

114. Oh, now I get it. Are you sure they are blowing it up under the

same radioactive soil? That would be detectable in the dust that blows over Vegas (or where ever) - wouldn't they EASILY get caught/busted doing that? ]

In this day and age, the public is pretty sophisticated - they could measure the radioactivity in the soil and it would turn into some big scandal, no doubt.

But then again, maybe they'd just say "Oh, our bad. It was a mistake. Not to worry though, the radiation levels are not so bad...Nothing to see here. Move along."

[file83]

115. You know what, maybe you ARE on to something here....

I just noticed that another poster claimed "the radiation is no longer dangerous" - but it IS detectable. I saw a science show where the host has a Geiger counter (or something like that) at Ground Zero of one of the first nuclear test sites and the Geiger counter was registering plenty of detectable radiation, but it was still "safe".

So, your theory makes sense. If they blow up this conventional weapon under soil with detectable radiation, maybe they are conducting some sort of "worse case scenario" PHYSICAL (not computer modeled) research into "dirty bomb" effectiveness.

The question is whether they are doing this to learn how to protect us, or they are learning what it can do for more nefarious reasons?

Sorry I blew your theory out the window so quickly, but now I see where you are coming from. Thanks for explaining the concept and opening my mind to it as a possiblity. :thumbsup:

Well, no matter what happens, there will be members of the public measuring the radioactive levels in the dust cloud as it blows around the region. It'll be interesting to see what they find.

[TankLV]

134. Nope - not a "conventional" bomb - it's a NUKE!

The winds have been notorious for drifting hundreds of miles away - and that would place it not only over LV, but well past it on the other side!

Do a little research - it's not "harmless" at all.

[Seabiscuit]

139. The article doesn't say it's a "nuke" - while it does mention "mushroom

cloud" perhaps they were using some poetic license, since it will be detonated at the same site where nukes were tested decades ago. The article only says it's a "700 tonne explosive charge". Nuclear bombs don't weigh 700 tons.

[Big_Mike]

103. You are thinking of gamma rays only.

Those are the rays released from a nuclear detonation. They don't occur naturally; they only appear with fission or fusion (Nuke or Thermo-nuke). What a mushroom cloud would have in it is dust and material picked up from the surface or below the surface and carried on the winds. This dust would have Alpha and Beta particles. I was taught in the service that Alpha particles have to be inhaled to cause damage, and that Beta particles would penetrate about 1 to 1.5 inches. Now with stuff picked up from the surface, you'll have transuranic materials: those that aren't normally radioactive, but become so when exposed to other radioactivity. If you want more information, get someone who did more than the NBC defense course in 1985. :)

One thing about a large conventional explosion: it does create a mushroom shaped cloud. That's because the explosives burning in the center of the charge create a super heated column of hot air. Hot air then rises, etc. etc. etc.

If anyone knows better, would love the education. I might be old and fat, but I still like to learn.

[jsamuel]

109. right, but the other poster suggested that the "mushroom cloud" would be a

result of some sort of WMD testing and could include nuclear weapons

[TankLV]

136. It IS "nuclear"! That's why it's such a concern for us Las Vegans!

It's not a non-nuclear bomb!

[Megahurtz]

69. Well That's a Thought!

Who knows what their real agenda is.:tinfoilhat:

[UpInArms]

5. won't Kindasleazy be surprised that the "mushroom cloud" will be

caused by us?

Top Bush officials push case against Saddam

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

[northzax]

6. we have a weapon with 'divine' in the title?

no, no holy war here.

[phantom power]

9. More than a bit creepy, isn't it.

[oneighty]

30. Divine Wind

Kamikaze.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

180

[northzax]

54. yeah, but there was at least an historical basis for that name

the Kamikaze has protected Japan in the past (it was the typhoon that destroyed the Mongol invasion fleet in 1281.

[oneighty]

68. Yes I know

But it seems powers that be making these charming names for destructive devices would shy away from the 'Divine' word.

It just does not fit any philosophy-except death and destruction at the hands of a magical being.

It is how I see it.

180

[Mika]

106. BushCrimeInc needs a name w/"Divine" for the crusade. n/t

[orleans]

97. i was thinking the same thing n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

123. I think they may have plans for a new casino with that name (eom)

[wordpix]

127. yes, because * and his cult think he's the second coming on divine mission

[medeak]

7. bunker buster....sounds like Afghanistan better evacuate

the mountains:

Tegnelia said the test was part of a US effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

[Poll_Blind]

8. "We have several very large penetrators..." Oh, I'll bet you do. n/t

PB

[WinkyDink]

53. Au contraire, mon frere. I'll bet that they don't is the problem.

[Poll_Blind]

64. LOL, that's sort of what I meant....Now they've got the weapons...

...they've finally got something virile- unlike the vinegar-reeking shiveled things they've got that passes for a phallus!

PB

[TankLV]

137. I wish they'd just by an SUV for their "shortcommings" instead...

Like everybody else does!

[wordpix]

128. their penetrators sure know how to fuck us over

[Journeyman]

11. Well, if this triggers an earthquake in California. . .

I'm sure the Pentagon will claim it was all our fault.

[Posteritatis]

26. Augh! You're grounded! Go to your room! (n/t)

[DUHandle]

12. Sounds like a boon

to the groundwater.

[AndyA]

Why don't they do their testing in Iraq, they've already torn up

Iraq. Now they have to start destroying America as well?

This whole test sounds rather concerning. I'll bet we'd never even know about it if they could find a place where no one would see the cloud. Deny. Deny again. Deny some more.

Perhaps this test is to send a message to a few countries...

[newspeak]

19. when they were doing the above ground testing

the residue floated over into Utah-I have friends whose families lived in Beaver, Utah and other Southern Utah towns that wound up with rare cancers and thyroid problems due to the fallout. Even though this bomb isn't supposed to be nuclear, I don't trust or put it past this government to use the American people as true guinea pigs. Unfortunately, if they do use them as test subjects, I wonder how they feel about using the majority of their base as test subjects.

[newspeak]

15. whaaaaat?

I live in the Vegas area!!!!:wtf: :wtf: My father-in-law remembers going outside during the nuclear bomb tests and watching the mushroom cloud go up.

[MadMaddie]

16. How would an explosion like this effect Hoover Dam...?

I would expect the government to take those things in consideration but....I am prepared for

"Who could of expected the Hoover Dam to be impacted by the explosion"?:banghead:

[file83]

57. Nah, the Hoover Dam was around during the Nevada nuke tests...

[jus_the_facts]

17. Fucking IDIOTS...why not outsource their testing sites....

:sarcasm:

[medeak]

18. I like the way you think!!!! n/t

[EvolvedChimp]

20. I'd like to believe. . .

That our government would take every measure to ensure that they are not endangering the lives of it's citizens. But I feel like if it is cheaper to do it there then they'll just settle. But event he soldier who pushes the button is a human, that's somewhat comforting

[CrispyQ]

21. Our country has been seized by madmen. ..nt

[Don Claybrook]

23. Is my math wrong?

700 tons at 2,000 pounds per ton makes a 1.4 million pound bomb, does it not?

How would our loveable Dr. Donald Strangelove ever deliver this bomb to "the enemy"? Would a C5 even hold this much cargo? I don't know, but I'm thinking not. A rocket that had enough thrust to deliver this would be prohibitively expensive. FedEX won't take it.

So what's the real purpose of this display of obscenely large explosives? I sure don't know, but I do recall that president fuckwit likes to "send messages". I'm guessing this one is meant for a domestic audience who isn't frightened enough yet.

[EarlG]

42. The cargo capacity of a C130

is 42,000 pounds - so you'd need 34 of them to move 700 tonnes worth of explosives.

Is 700 tonnes the equivalent TNT yield, or is it literally the weight of the explosives they're using?

(C130 reference: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=92)

[Jacobin]

72. From the website you cited:

Maximum payload Wartime: 291,000 pounds, which would be 145 tons.

I don't understand how they think they can fly around a 700 ton bomb. Maybe its a typo in the article and they meant 70 tons which would still be a major problem to drop, since controlling the plane after losing that much weight all at once would seem to be almost impossible.

[orleans]

98. washingtonpost and abc news also say 700 ton explosive n/t

[KevinJH87]

43. maybe explosive power

I could be wrong, or just misunderstanding you, but I think the 700 ton bomb means that its explosive power is 700 tons, not the bomb. Sort of like megatons, etc.

[file83]

58. No, the "explosive power" is only used for nuclear bombs - Conventional

weapons such as this one are LITERALLY that heavy.

For example, a "20 kiloton" nuclear weapon has the same amount of explosive force as 20 kilotons of TNT.

But a 700 ton conventional weapon is exactly that: 700 tons.

[acmejack]

75. I thought you might find this interesting.

I messed with these devises in one of my past lives.

snip>
It took the United States about two decades of work, and lots of testing, to get the weight of a nuclear warhead down from five tons to 128 pounds. This lightweight device, the W-48 warhead, was used in 155mm artillery shells. It had a yield of only .072 KT (72 tons of high explosive), but this was still several thousand times the explosive effect of a normal 155mm shell. At around the same time, the W-44 warhead, weighing 170 pounds, had a yield of 10 KT (thousand tons of high explosive equivalent, two thirds the power of the Hiroshima bomb). The smallest nuclear warhead ever developed (the W-54) weighed 51 pounds, and was used in the Falcon air-to-air missile. This weapon had a yield of up to one KT. It was intended to knock down formations of Russian heavy bombers.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20031028.aspx

[file83]

80. I have always been curious about those artillary shells...

How does the nuclear fission device inside the warhead survive the initial firing from the cannon? Aren't nuclear warheads sort of sensitive, I mean, sensitive enough that the device surrounding the nuclear material might get knocked out of whack when the cannon is fired?

Or is that all "top-secret" stuff on a "need to know" basis? :patriot: :shrug: :patriot:

[acmejack]

93. There are two designs.

One, a spherical implosion design, uses intricate timing circuits which are quite delicate but higher yield (more efficient). The other, which is a gun type design, is more "robust". Here is a link which will explain it in a rudimentary & hopefully a somewhat more comprehensible manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

edit for readability

[54anickel]

95. 700-tons of heavy ammonium nitrate fuel oil-emulsion detonated by

up to 300 pounds of C-4. See post 40 & 92.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Max C5 payload 132 tonnes

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c5_specs.asp

but that doesn't mean you could drop that from the plane in one go and keep the plane under control.

Yeah, I agree there's no way this is a test of a deliverable conventional weapon. More like a simulation of a mini-nuclear bomb.

[wordpix]

131. my friend & I were computing this is like 700 Jeep Cherokees all being

dropped from the sky, ignited and blown up at the same time.

[daleo]

138. I think it is to see what a mini-nuke would do

Without actually using one. This way, they can see the fallout patterns of a large explosion in a desert environment. It's not too hard to see where that leads.

[jpak]

25. This is a mini-nuke simulation

They are going to use them against Iran.

:nuke:

[formercia]

28. 0.7Kt

'bout right...

Now all they need to do is figure out how to make conventional explosives behave like nuclear explosives.

[jpak]

59. It might be more depending on the explosive compound used

HMX or RDX or CL-20, etc...

Closer to 1 KT TNT equivalent...

[formercia]

71. Thermal Neutron flux would be difficult to simulate

and would have a larger kill radius than the conventional explosive. Then there's the short half-life isotopes created by a ground burst. I wouldn't want to be down wind of even the smallest yield device.

[jpak]

82. They do that with sub-critical tests and computer simulations

This is an old fashioned "hey let's blow summin' up" blast overpressure damage assessment test...

[formercia]

87. I think you're right there

they probably built a similated underground bunker and piled HE on top for a dog and pony show.

Underground bunker damage tests have been done before and could be extrapolated, so I think this is just to impress the natives and send a 'warning'.

Maybe it's the dreaded L pill. :evilgrin:

[jpak]

65. More info on earth penetrating mini-nukes

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

In a 1991 Strategic Affairs article entitled "Countering the Threat of the Well-armed Tyrant," Los Alamos weapons analysts Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard II, argued that the US has no proportionate response to a rogue dictator who uses chemical or biological weapons against US troops. Our smallest nuclear weapons — those with Hiroshima-size yields—would be so devastating that no US president could use them. We would be "self-deterred." To counter this dilemma, they argued the US should develop "mininukes," with yields equivalent to 0.01-1 KT: "... nuclear weapons with very low yields could provide an effective response for countering the enemy in such a crisis, while not violating the principle of proportionality."


like I said earlier - this is a mini-nuke simulation and they ARE going to use them against Iran....

[formercia]

70. Nuke Artillery shells fit that description

155 mm and smaller already in inventory. It's not a big technical problem to adapt a penetrator based on those designs.

[Radioactive]

85. Hiroshima = 14Kt...... This bomb = 0.7kt

Make no mistake that is a big bomb.

#Edit - Ooops made a mistake, I thought I read it would be exploding with the force of 0.7kt TNT, my mistake.

[htuttle]

27. That will look just like the ending scene from The Stand

[file83]

60. I bet there will be cool photographs of it - usually sunny skies over NV.

[lovuian]

31. This is a warning to Iran and a warning to Americans

but its also a test to see if we really can penetrate those bunkers

or is this just BS from the manufacturer and from a general...

Its serious business...

[file83]

44. This is the "shot across the bow" for Iran refusing to

comply with UN demands.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Thursday the "international community is united" in the dispute over its nuclear program, but a Tehran envoy defiantly rejected a U.N. call to reimpose a freeze on uranium enrichment.

<snip>

The West has refused to rule out sanctions, and U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.

"On the table" means they are planning on eating Iran. They said the same thing about 1 month before invading Iraq.

[wallwriter]

47. My thoughts exactly. nt

[reprobate]

52. I wonder what the reaction of the UN and the world would be to

....the use of a nuke - even a "mininuke"- by us on Iran? We are STILL the only nation to use nukes on others. Continuing that distinction I think would not be well accepted by the world.

It's my impression that most of the world now only tolerates the US. What would they do if faced with the spread once more of nuclear usage on innocents. I don't know what the prevailing winds in Iran are like, but the prospect of fallout on populated areas is always there. And who would bet that the morons in charge of our nation haven't even given that a thought. After all, Iran IS part of the 'axis of evil', so they aren't fully human, right?

[cleofus1]

32. so what kind of bets are being taken

and what do you think the odds are?

[KansDem]

35. And once again I have to ask...

...the test was part of a US effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

Do we really want to disperse nuclear, chemical or biological materials into the atmosphere with a huge explosion?

I'm really getting tired of this shit...

[cleofus1]

36. it's ironic

the only time these nuts think ahead is to further their own stupidity

[katty]

63. yup, welcome to Dumsfeld's Playhouse...let's bomb Vegas!

[Posteritatis]

38. A lot of chem/bio weapons are surprisingly fragile

If you hit them with an explosive of that size, the heat and shock would quickly sterilize any biologicals or burn any chemicals into uselessness.

There's reasons beyond simple fear of retaliation that those kinds of weapons haven't been used much since the world wars. They're hard to preserve and deploy, much, much harder than the military or media would have people think. Conversely, they're much, much easier to contain or destroy than the military or media would have people think. In other words, not only are they not worth the risk, they're generally not worth the effort unless you're already committing to something like the Iran-Iraq war of the eighties.

Nuclear materials, of course, are another thing entirely.

[windy252]

37. Talk about an appropriate day to buy the soundtrack

to The Hills have Eyes.

[MGKrebs]

39. Another war? Does that mean we get another tax cut too?

I'm just sayin'...

[file83]

45. We get a tax cut AND we'll outsource more jobs!

[54anickel]

40. Looks like this has been in the works for a while....2001?

http://budget.state.nv.us/clearinghouse/Notice/2006/E2006-222.pdf

I can't cut n paste, but go to the 13th page section 1.2 Purpose and need. (I'm too slow and lazy a typist)

[chapel hill dem]

90. This is about the 13th test of this type (page 15-16) and many were MUCH

bigger. And, this is an ANFO (ammonium nitrate/fuel oil) bomb like OK City.

[54anickel]

91. Here's the part I was referring to....

The Proposed Action is a key RDT&E component of the DoD Global Strike concept of operations. In Sept 2001, the DOD's Congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review report established a shift in defense planning from a "threat-based" to a "capability-based" model, advocating a transformation of DoD planning to achieve critical operation capabilities. The Congressionally-directed Nuclear Posture Review in Dec 2001 further outlined the foundation for the U.S. nuclear strategic posture for the 21st Century. In addition the January 2001 DoD Capstone Requirements Document for Hard and Deeply Buried Targets established a new paradigm for addressing strategic targets to include the Global Strike concept.

In response to the requirements outlined in the documents described above, the President of the United States directed the Secretary of Defense in May 2002 to develop the capability to be able to hold all potential a adversarial targets at risk as an integral part of the nation's policy of deterrence. This was to become a DoD extension to the 26 June 2001 U.S. Air Force's Global Strike Force concept to quickly respond to threats anywhere in the world with conventional tactics and munitions. In May 2003 the Secretary of Defense directed the military services to develop Concept of Operations Plans to implement the Global Strike concept with United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) as the overall coordination group.

Per a Presidential Decision Directive issued in Summer 2004, the USSTRATCOM was directed to extend Global Strike to counter all HDBTs to include both tactical and strategic adversarial targets. The Proposed Action is an integral part of the Global Strike concept in support of the national defense.

[54anickel]

105. About that 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:Jw231aLKmtwJ:www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf+Quadrennial+Defense+Review+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

snip>

The Quadrennial Defense Review was undertaken during a crucial time of
transition to a new era. Even before the attack of September 11, 2001, the
senior leaders of the Defense Department set out to establish a new
strategy for America's defense that would embrace uncertainty and
contend with surprise, a strategy premised on the idea that to be effective
abroad, America must be safe at home. It sought to set the conditions to
extend America's influence and preserve America's security. The strategy
that results is built around four key goals that will guide the development
of U.S. forces and capabilities, their deployment and use:

* Assuring allies and friends of the United States' steadiness of
purpose and its capability to fulfill its security commitments;
n Dissuading adversaries from undertaking programs or
operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of our
allies and friends;

* Deterring aggression and coercion by deploying forward the
capacity to swiftly defeat attacks and impose severe penalties for
aggression on an adversary's military capability and supporting
infrastructure; and

* Decisively defeating any adversary if deterrence fails.

A central objective of the review was to shift the basis of defense planning
from a "threat-based" model that has dominated thinking in the past to a
"capabilities-based" model for the future. This capabilities-based model
focuses more on how an adversary might fight rather than specifically
whom the adversary might be or where a war might occur. It recognizes
that it is not enough to plan for large conventional wars in distant theaters.
Instead, the United States must identify the capabilities required to deter
and defeat adversaries who will rely on surprise, deception, and
asymmetric warfare to achieve their objectives.

Adopting this capabilities-based approach to planning requires that the
nation maintain its military advantages in key areas while it develops new
areas of military advantage and denies asymmetric advantages to
adversaries. It entails adapting existing military capabilities to new
circumstances, while experimenting with the development of new
military capabilities. In short, it requires the transformation of U.S. forces,
capabilities, and institutions to extend America's asymmetric advantages
well into the future.

more....

Seems all they needed was "another Pearl Harbor" :tinfoilhat:

[54anickel]

92. What is C-4 explosive?

It says it would detonate 700-tons of heavy ammonium nitrate fuel oil-emulsion (aka ANFO) in a charge hole 32 ft in diameter and 36 ft deep located at the surface above the tunnel. In addition to the ANFO, up to 300 pounds of C-4 explosive would be used to initiate detonation.

[chapel hill dem]

104. See wikipedia below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-4_%28explosive%29

[enlightenment]

100. Yes, but if you read a bit further, this will be the first

open air detonation. The others were literally underground; this one will be in a 36 foot deep hole over a tunnel that's 99 feet underground.

Blowing this up probably isn't too bad (and I live in LV, so I feel a bit invested . . .) -- it's the idea of what they are really trying to test -- nukes.

And that pisses me off. It's one thing to refuse to ratify the CTBT (actually, I think Congress might do it, but * refuses to introduce it so it can be considered), it's another to start testing again -- and I'm not talking about the sub-critical tests, but the real thing.

[pinniped]

46. Test it at Yucca mountain.

These people are fucking insane.

Lock them up.

They take away old people's food supplement program so they can play mushroom cloud.

[liberal N proud]

48. It's only a little bomb 700 Ton

What could it hurt?


:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
:sarcasm:

[Brooklyn Michael]

49. They just want to break the San Andreas fault line...

...and get rid of California altogether.

It's taking "re-districting" to the next level.

:tinfoilhat:

[Gregorian]

50. All I can say is.....DARFUR.

It's my money. I want to feed starving people with it.

[DUHandle]

51. Here you go

a little some to look at.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Trinity.html


Near the bottom of the page you can find An MPEG Movie of Trinity, no sound (239946 bytes)

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

55. ANYONE in Las Vegas trying to STOP this? the GOVERNOR? groups? protests?

Are nearby residents going to allow this?
Can ANYONE legally prevent or postpone the test?

[file83]

61. Are you kidding? They are probably all placing bets on how high the cloud

will go. VEGAS BABY, VEGAS!

[enlightenment]

102. Thanks. You bet. That's all we do here.

Drinkin', gamblin' and whorin' --

actually, Nevada has always been a mining state. In the 19th century we mined silver and gold out of the hills. Now we mine money out of the tourists' pockets.

Come visit. Soon. And as you gamble, ask yourself why you don't see very many Las Vegas residents dropping their money at the tables . . .

[henslee]

56. Not kewl.

[Canuckistanian]

67. Hope they don't ignite the earth's oxygen supply

That would be emabrassing.

[formercia]

73. an old bete noir

that was one of the early fears....

[Canuckistanian]

94. Hey, I'm fond of betes noires!

They remind me of my youth...

But seriously, is this a desperate attempt to use "conventional" weapons to do the work of small nukes?

The psychological effects of using actual nukes would cause worldwide condemnation.

[angryxyouth]

74. The article did not mention if they would be using depleted uranium?

Isn't that the norm for bunker busters?:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[NVMojo]

76. this is insane, these things can impact earthquake faults ...Yucca mtn

is not far from this and opponents have proven that there are faults under it! Fecking insane!

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

81. it's barely underground-16ft- to caim it's not "above ground" testing

which is banned internationally- we signed the treaty.

but I'd say 16 ft underground is not underground testing and
technically should be considered illegal by the international community.

[HuffleClaw]

79. a smokescreen (pun intended)

so that when they DO use nukes they can claim it was a 'new' weapon.

[The Witch]

83. I'm sick of having atomic nightmares.

Every single government official should go to the Hiroshima Peace Museum and view Barefoot Gen before they do this shit.

:scared:

[The Witch]

84. Incidentally, truth in anagrams! DIVINE STRAKE = NATIVES IRKED.

:rofl:

[Cronus Protagonist]

89. DIVINE STRAKE = Dark Invitees

Also...

Advertise Ink
Aitken's Drive
Derisive Tank
Inverted Saki
Invaders kite
Kiva Resident
Strained Kiev
Astride Kevin

[donkeyotay]

86. They've undone decades of progress. Everything that people worked

so hard to achieve after the horrors of war:

They've destroyed the Geneva Convention, and they've ended hopes of non-prolferation and ending atomic testing. They're kicking off a new arms race by making nuclear weapons more useable, and everyone will want them, and everyone will need to test them. They are engaging us in a new arms race even as they bankrupt us, outsource our technology and make us vulnerable to new, rising powers, and they are bringing back the Cold War.

These guys are nuts. The Prince of Darkness must be pleased.

[formercia]

88. BE AFRAID!!!

that's what it's about.

more Schlock than awe.

[Karmakaze]

96. This is a test of the effects of a nuclear explosion.

What they are doing is testing how a "mini-nuke" bunker buster will act. Fisrtly, will it have the desired effect on the target, secondly what will be the range of the fallout.

Not all nuclear detonations create fallout. To create fallout, the nuclear fireball has to touch the ground, but to destroy a bunker, you need a surface or subsurface detonation. If the nuke is buried deep enough none of the fallout will escape into the atmosphere, but if it is too shallow, then it will create huge amounts of fallout.

The problem is, earth penetrators don't dig very deep:

Destroying a target buried 1,000 feet into rock would require a nuclear weapon with the yield of 100 kilotons. That is 10 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Even the effects of a small bomb would be dramatic. A 1-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated 20 to 50 feet underground would dig a crater the size of Ground Zero in New York and eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air. Detonating a similar weapon on the surface of a city would kill a quarter of a million people and injure hundreds of thousands more.

Nuclear weapons cannot be engineered to penetrate deeply enough to prevent fallout. Based on technical analysis at the Nevada Test Site, a weapon with a 10-kiloton yield must be buried deeper than 850 feet to prevent spewing of radioactive debris. Yet a weapon dropped from a plane at 40,000 feet will penetrate less than 100 feet of loose dirt and less than 30 feet of rock. Ultimately, the depth of penetration is limited by the strength of the missile casing. The deepest our current earth penetrators can burrow is 20 feet of dry earth. Casing made of even the strongest material cannot withstand the physical forces of burrowing through 100 feet of granite, much less 850 feet.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm

So, while Bush and gang talk about the "safe use" of "mini-nukes" that fact is there is NO safe use. No earth pentrators can dig deep enough to prevent huge amounts of fallout, and the depths they CAN dig to require HUGE nukes to destroy a bunker built to withstand such strikes.

So what they are doing with this test is seeing just how far the fallout will go. They KNOW they can't prevent fallout, but if they only target bunkers far enough away from populated areas, then the effects of the fallout can be minimised. At least thats what they hope.

The reality is, they can NOT make mini-nuke "bunker busters" that destroy the target. The most they can hope for is to drop such a weapon at all the known entrances and cut off access to the bunker for some period of time. In the meantime they will have unleashed far greater fallout than the Hiroshima or Nagasaki explosions, because they were airbursts set off at a height designed to prevent the fireball touching the ground.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

99. n0- read post 51- download the pdf- it's buried 16 ft underground

they probably are testing fallout though

[Karmakaze]

101. Read my post -

A 1 kiloton warhead (1000 tons) detonated 20 to 50 feet underground will eject 1 million cubic feet of radioactive debris into the air.

So seeing as how 16ft is even shallower, I would expect the fallout to be approximately the same in this case, just not radioactive. So what they will be looking for is if the tunnel collapses, and how much of it collapses, and how far the fallout goes.

Based on those figures they will be able to calculate a "safe" margin. In other words they are so desperate to use nukes, that even though they won't really do what they want, and can't be used everywhwre, they are trying to find where they CAN use them without causing too many deaths due to fallout.

It's sickening.

[Kagemusha]

116. Definitely a good summary of the known facts on fallout.

But I've said for years that Rumsfeld doesn't *believe* in planning because "How can you know what'll happen? If you claim you know for certain, you're a liar and a fool" basically. So actually running a test of this specific situation is probably the only way to get data that people will believe. Because they won't simply believe a bunch of scientists saying the math says such and such.

[symbolman]

107. Just so folks that don't know this realise it

These are the same guys that KILLED JOHN WAYNE. No one talks much about it, but some of the older Hollywood guys started realising that some of the old movies they made were made in areas where they had done lots of Nuke testing..

One old fellow said, "Yeah, there we were, playing baseball between takes, knocking all that radioactive dust up, breathing it in, etc.."

John Wayne died of lung cancer and other diseases associated with radiation poisoning.. I know, I saw the son of a bitch (and I liked him, except for this all american crap), in Basic training when he spoke at Lackland Air Base in 1971.. they marched us over to get a big old dose of Patriotism from the Duke himself..

When I saw him I thought it was a hoax, skinny old man, no hair, wheezing through one lung.. THEY KILLED HIM..

Nothing like a big old mushroom cloud to keep those tourists happy and profits up.. wonder what the mafia thinks of Bush and co blowing shit up near their money machine, as I recall the last guy that pissed off the mob while in the White House didn't fare too well...

[maxrandb]

108. What is it with these guys??

"We have several very large penetrators we're developing," he told defense reporters

Always talking about "large penetrators".

Makes me think that they're compensating for "short-comings" in other areas.

If you know what I mean.

[Blaq Dem]

111. What a BIG waste of money

What's the point of spending large sums of money to blow things up when they'll never be used anyway? And using them will destroy the planet in such a way that no one can live on it. Not only that, any psycho can get their slimy hands on the technology. Some people are just plain stoopid.

[lies and propaganda]

113. no fucking way! OVER Vegas???????

Cause its full of sinners and degenerates like Bill Bennett?

[wordpix]

124. 90 mi. away

[brentspeak]

117. Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!

Strangelove would be proud of this madness.

[DrZeeLit]

118. And just last week I showed my students JFK's speech where...

we went first... to quit testing.
And they thought it was terrific.

Wow. I am so stunned.
Wha...wha...wha...wtf?

Just when I thought these guys couldn't do anything more stupid...wow...they stepped in it again.

Unfortunately, they step in it, and we smell the shit.
Or in this case... we are shit upon.
Geez.

Ich ben ien American.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

121. So how do you deliver this?

"Tegnelia said the test was part of a US effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."

700 tons is 1,400,000 pounds. There is no aircraft that can deliver this. OK, let's put it on a truck. If a truck can carry 20 tons, then 35 trucks ought to do the job. No one would notice that, right?

Edited:

Oh, never mind. I see that there are already several posts on this. What the writer meant to say was that the bomb will have power that is the equivalent of 700 tons of TNT.

[BrightKnight]

122. self delete - n/t

[Paulie]

129. It's the TSAR BOMBA!!!!!!!

The USSR was so much better than us on this topic of big bombs to make up for little wee-wee's:

Tsar Bomba (Russian: ????-?????, literally "Emperor of bombs") is the Western name for the largest nuclear explosive ever detonated. Developed by the Soviet Union, the 57 megaton bomb was codenamed Ivan (Russian: ????) by its developers.

The bomb was tested on October 30, 1961 in Novaya Zemlya, an island in the Arctic Sea. Although the device was scaled down from its original design of 100 megatons to minimize nuclear fallout, it still remains the most powerful weapon ever deployed (and possibly engineered) by humans.

Due to its enormous size the bomb was not practical for warfare purposes, and was created primarily for propaganda use in the intense rivalry of the Cold War. There is no evidence that any other bomb of similar power was ever made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba

[StrafingMoose]

130. Will evil terrorists strike at same time of drills

...just like on 9/11 and 7/7 ?


:eyes:

[daleo]

135. They tested the big MOAB (fuel-air bomb) before the Iraq invasion

So, this is a good sign that they plan to go ahead with the Iran attack. 700 tonnes of explosives is nearly a kiloton - in other words this is a good test of the blast effects of a low yield nuclear device, which might be used to attack Iranian underground hardened targets. It's all madness of course, but Bush has proven he is capable of madness.

[womanofthehills]

140. Los Alamos National Labs putting DU into air in NM

So why not Nevada. Do you guys deserve any better than us. Good article in this months "Sun Monthly" -
www.sunmonthly.com out of Santa Fe, NM. Click on flower picture and scroll down to "Blowing Smoke - LANL is sending deadly DU into the air we breathe" by Marilyn Gayle Hoff.

The article says that permits allow l,584 lbs of DU to get "burned"upwind of Espanola, Taos, White Rock,
9 Native American Pueblos and small Hispanic villages, and there also are denotations and explosions with a drop tower - DU and high explosives subjected to "massive impact." These tests might be connected to the one planned in Nevada. Also ( not in this article) Jemez Pueblo has high rates of asthma - no surprise.

I live in the middle of the state in a rural area 50 miles north of the Trinity Site. Recently, one of the woman in my book club comes to the meeting and tells us 24 black cars all the same come down her dirt road (her land is about 15 miles above the White Sands Missle Range and ask her what she is doing on the road. When she says she lives there, they are very surprised - they said they didn't know anyone was living in the area and the only info they would give was they were "testing". Amy Goodman once called NM the radioactive state and she said her mother told her not to eat the lettuce while she was here.