Goldwaters
Active member
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 266
- Reaction score
- 62
- Location
- Liberal Northern California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Taiwan is still run by the descendants of Chank Ki Chek and they will not be ruled by a Chinese occupation. China knows that. Taking a hard line towards Taipei is standard procedure for Chinese because of what a ganster Chang was. I think as long as the Mainland talks tough and makes provocative jestures in the straights periodically that's enough.Then what does the United States do? Does the U.S. honor it's defense commitments to Taiwan? Or, does the U.S. learn the lesson of Vietnam, and stay out of what is essentially a Chinese civil war?
Uh...you are aware that the function of enhanced radiation weapons is to enhance the radiation output and minimize the blast, right?
I mean, what do you think the term "enhanced radiation weapon" means? You could try learning something about the topic, and nuclear weapons in general, since you're clearly extremely ignorant and are posting from emotional responses to cartoon images you've seen.
Pretending the Chinese will continue to remain technological inferiors is pretty ignorant.
Especially considering their continued massive efforts at industrial espionage at all levels.
C'mon. If this was legit, why isn't there anything reputable on it?
Furthermore, do you have anything by Dr. Frank Barnaby himself rather than someone else saying he did it?
Not to mention trusting the Russians during the 1990s was generally a bad idea.
And your own article shows that the substance was a fraud which appeared to be nothing more than a get rich quick Kremlin scheme.
This whole thing looks like something the Russians concocted to make money. Physics based, it doesn't make much sense at all.
If the guy who invented the working model says it works then why wouldnt it?
They will remain technological inferiors. Have you seen our defense budget?
Because it doesn't? The material he called it does not act in the way he says it does. Furthermore, his entire argument on red mercury is based off secret interviews that the man who conducted the interviews has apparently nothing to say about them or even if they happened. And actual real experiences with red mercury have either been ploys to catch terrorists or make money off of fools. Nothing tangible has come up that the stuff actually exists. The whole thing reeks of a Kremlin get rich quick scam.
What happened to the 1000 bombs created in the 80's? The were supposedly not deployed in nato areas.
As I understand it, there were only a few actually made. And it's questionable if they left anything standing after the bomb went off to irradiate. Scarecrow is operating under the pop culture guise that a neutron bomb leaves structures in tact and only saturates the area with life killing radiation. This is simply untrue as the blast to produce the neutrons is still a nuclear explosion and does level many buildings and produce the heat and shock wave consistent with a nuclear explosion. IMO, I don't really see the point in current neutron technology and until we figure out a way to produce the sufficent level of neutrons without the nuclear explosion, it's counterproductive. We're better off just stop the invasion force in the water. Seems to me that would be easier. Or just not get into a war. That would be even easier, Ron Paul style.
Compared to regular nuclear weapons, the explosive power of a neutron bomb is small, its effective use is its killing radiation.
Damage to infrastructure is minimal, as is residual radiation.
but the former leaves infrastructure mostly intact to be used by civilians (after their troops are buried)...
Do we have actual test results on this?
Actually as I understand it, it levels mostly everything that isn't up to military grade construction. The primary use of neutrons is to take out armor units which are protected from the blast but not from radiation. The idea isn't to save the infrastructure, but to eliminate massive Soviet tank columns without irradiating the land. So it does wipe out buildings as a side effect. Remember that we dismantled our neutrons after the Soviet Union well as the risk of massive Soviet tank invasions no longer existed, taking with it the purpose of a neutron bomb.
Where did you get this notion from? As I understand, the blast is pretty significant. Remember that the range of the weapon is pretty small. While the fringe of the blast is not heavily damaged, the ground zero is.
Actually as I understand it, it levels mostly everything that isn't up to military grade construction. The primary use of neutrons is to take out armor units which are protected from the blast but not from radiation. The idea isn't to save the infrastructure, but to eliminate massive Soviet tank columns without irradiating the land. So it does wipe out buildings as a side effect. Remember that we dismantled our neutrons after the Soviet Union well as the risk of massive Soviet tank invasions no longer existed, taking with it the purpose of a neutron bomb.
A neutron bomb, technically referred to as an enhanced radiation weapon (ERW), is a type of tactical nuclear weapon formerly built mainly by the United States specifically to release a large portion of its energy as energetic neutron radiation. This contrasts with standard thermonuclear weapons, which are designed to capture this intense neutron radiation to increase its overall explosive yield. In terms of yield, ERWs typically produce about one-tenth that of most fission-type atomic weapons.[1] Even with their significantly lower explosive power, ERWs are still capable of much greater destruction than any conventional bomb. Meanwhile, relative to other nuclear weapons, damage is more focused on biological material than on material infrastructure (though extreme blast and heat effects are not eliminated—see Technical overview below).
They will remain technological inferiors.
Have you seen our defense budget?
Not to mention the industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against?
And you have ignored both Rathi and my point about logistics.
Technological superiority does not mean you have the logistics to support a large army thousands of miles away with no support and friendly bases.
Read more than wikipedia. Yes, it is a nuclear blast, but you can detonate it high above a battlefield to minimize the blast.
But to produce the necessarily and sufficent level of radiation, one requires a significently large nuclear reaction, which comes with the downsize of massive damage. You are under the false impression that a neutron bomb leaves structures in tact.
It's like a massive EMP. By the time you do it, there's nothing that uses electricity left intact. So why bother?
lol. That's the best you got? (btw, you've been reported for that) Nothing you've said explains why a neutron bomb would work
and I've stated one of the many reasons it never got off the ground. One of which is one of the required elements decays rather quickly, between 10~20 years.
The best support you got in the thread was from Akyron who cited what appears to be a Kremlin scam to make money selling duds.
To produce the required amount of neutrons, you need to produce a nuclear explosion that is so large that everything you're trying to irradiate with the neutrons is destroyed in the nuclear blast rendering the weapon pointless.
Not to mention that such a weapon does not result in instant death. In fact we'd be facing legions of PRC troops who know exactly what is going to happen to them over the next week and will likely fight much harder.
You understand it wrong.
Uh, that minimizes the radiation that actually has any effect. The greater the distance, especially when it comes to atmospheric particles that absorb the radiation, the less damage you do. You need to do close to the target. The optimal range is around 600 meters, which is about 1/3 of a mile which will still cause considerable damage to the target infrastructure. 10 km may not have any real impact whatsoever as that's 10,000 meters, well beyond the optimal range to remove armor.
I've never considered structures to be very tactful, actually.
But since the weapon is engineered to sacrifice blast for neutrons, and since most structures are relatively transparent to sub-atomic particles, most structures are, in fact, "tact".
To kill people.
Yes, I"ve been reported for discussing the ignorance of a poster on a topic she's ignorant about. So?
Meanwhile, I've made no effort to explain how any nuclear device works. It's not germane to the discussion.
Trust me, I know more than you.
Or don't trust me, I still know more.
Yes the polonium cores would have to be replaced often.
Why do you think such trivia is important?
That's just ignorant.
Have you at least Richard Rhodes two excellent histories, The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun? Have you taken a course in physics that includes topics such as critical mass and critical geometry, got any concept of the neutron reproductive cycle? Hmmm?
Don't lecture me on what you're ignorant of.
So? Usually soldiers whose intestines are sliding out their anus and who are leaking blood from their pores and their eyes aren't much good in battle. Who cares if they take a day or two to kick off? If we didn't want them dead, we wouldn't have nuked them, right?
Then I guess maybe the generals should use their neutron weapons before the enemy gets to town, assuming what you said what true, which it isn't.
I take it you just found out about these weapons and are trying to quickly bring yourself up to speed?
Again, I fully understand.
Even at 1/10th of the power, the damage at the epicenter will be immense as well the damage caused by the shockwave. And the way you are arguing to use them requires a large number of them. That effectively means that large areas of the US will be completely leveled.
...
You also ignore the purpose of the weapons: to eliminate soviet tanks columns without having to irradiate the land. It was never about keeping the civilian structures in tact. It was about stopping armor.
You know, the whole messiah crap turns people off
and makes you look stupid.
Very little in your second post is worth even discussing as it's more of a hyperpartisan rant with little ties to reality.
And you did in fact ignore the logistics problem that both Rathi and I discussed.
Nowhere did you even talk about it. In fact some of us made jokes about how China is even going to get here with sufficiently large numbers of assets.
And we didn't have technological superiority when it came to WWII.
But we still won. Having a giant based called England helped.
Why bother with a neutron when you can just torpedo the landing craft? Seems simpler to me. Or just not get into a war. Imagine that. Ron Paul suggested that the easiest way to avoid war is not to get into one. Huh. So simple!
You take a lot of things. You should put them back if they don't belong to you.
Nope
If you fully understood, you wouldn't have claimed that because more neutrons are needed that a bigger blast is needed.
That pretty much proves you don't know squat.
So, which is it, a land destroying supermegatonnage bomb as you claim in the first part, or an armor destroying non-irradiating weapon, as you claimed in the second?
Can you pick one argument and lose with that instead of picking two self-contradictory arguments and losing twice?
But no where near as stupid as the people that voted for him.
Yes, I hear that's one of the re-programming phrases from the DNC for people who need to follow orders. "hyperpartisan". Cool. What I think is means is that the people who voted for Obama burned out their hyperdrives.
No.
I stated they weren't important.
Alaska. Ya ever hear of the place? Are you aware that it was an important strategic issue in WWII?
There's this country called "Mexico", too. For some reason I can't imagine why you people are pretending Mexico doesn't exist.
The Japanese didn't advance technically.
The Germans had cool little toys, and their impact on the war was just as important as little kids playing with toys.
"We" won because "we" had factories the enemy couldn't reach and because, and only because, the funny little man in Berlin made the mistake of attacking the USSR before securing his western front first.
That's the only reason Hitler lost the war.
Okay. So what you're saying is that WWII is a complete mystery to you.
Very well.
You think China has 200 bombs they can send to the US.Interesting you bring this up.
In the past China has threatened to send a Neutron bomb to Taiwain and send 200 Nuclear bombs to U.S.
They are bitter of Taiwains dissent...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?