What if nukes had zero radiation?

[maslo]

Originally posted by NUKE
you actually trumped my next point........ thanks a lot!

I was going to try to leverage a debate of radiation vrs. blast and the morality/justification for the use/nonuse  of each weapon.

so if i see it correctly, you are asking, if we mind to kill civilians by thousand, if we can go and rob their dead bodies day ater?


dunno... may it could be acceptable for some God blessed people

[newtype]

B-52

[Leslie]

Roam and Love Shack are my favorites.  The B-52s are awesome.



Les

[gunnss]

Fuel Air Explosives allready approch the levels of WW2 nukes......
in GW1 I saw 2 story bunkers that had been riped out of the ground by FAEs

Gunns

[ravells]

Spiderman would win hands down.

Ravs

[Batz]

Radiation is isn't understood very well by most folks. Radiation is not what kills you from a nuke. In fact modern nukes are less dirty then the ones dropped on Japan.

Have any of you seen the Nova episode on "Dirt Bombs".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/dirtybomb/

Transcript

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3007_dirtybom.html

These Q & A's are from a FRONTLINE interview with Dr. Charles Till, a nuclear physicist and Associate Lab Director at Argonne National Laboratory West in Idaho.


Q: What is the nature of radiation? Is it that people have no way to experience it?

A: No, it isn't. And radiation, of course, to most who work with it is a very workaday kind of thing. The nature of radiation is that it requires a good bit of it to do you any harm. The nature of radiation is that you can detect absolutely insignificant amounts of it, extremely easily. The nature of radiation is that if you don't choose to detect it, you have it falling on you from everywhere you are on the earth's surface, in amounts that are probably 100 times or 1,000 times more than you would ever get from living near a nuclear plant.


Q: Where does most natural radiation come from?

A: Well, the natural radiation is mainly cosmic rays interacting with the earth's atmosphere, and we get a good bit of radiation on the earth's surface. The closer you are to the cosmos, the more radiation you get. So that if you're up in an airplane, you'll get considerably more than on the Earth's surface. Or people living at 5,000 feet, as I do, will get more than people living at sea level. But it's a part of the human environment just as air is, or anything else. It's most unremarkable.


Q: Why haven't experts been able to demonstrate to people that radiation is a natural phenomenon for which there's no escaping?

A: Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure that we are always able to convince people of our views, even though they may be correct. I think it requires a little bit of scientific background, probably, to be able to assess whether a statement that's made (you'll forgive me) on television is to frighten you for some political or other purpose, or whether it's there to provide you with information.

snip....

Q: Was Chernobyl a serious accident?

A: Chernobyl was the most serious accident, in my view, that a reactor could possibly have. It was a very large plant. It had been operating long enough that it had a large inventory of radioactive material and, it blew up. It was opened to the atmosphere for days. Fire, plumes of material, radioactive materials. The people who were asked to deal with the fire obviously had to be subjected to, in the crude way that the authorities responded to it, killing amounts of radiation. Some 30 or 40 of them did that, at an awful price. But contrary to the common knowledge that is simply not so. There have been very few, or in fact, only one identifiable source of deaths from that Chernobyl accident. And they are thyroids in children.


Q: Was Chernobyl as bad as it could get?

A: That's as bad an accident as you can get from a nuclear plant. And worse than any accident in a modern nuclear plant could possibly be. The point is that that reactor was on fire for days and days and days, with radioactive material going up into the air. But it was the crudest kind of reactor, which the Soviets thankfully have stopped building.

Fuel air explosions are fact horrid in their effects. Has anyone seen footage of Chechen's after the Russians used umm?

[Nilsen]

on the topic of radiation...

Anyone know when the US and UK planning to stop using DU rounds?

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid040402_1_n.shtml

[AKIron]

Acceptable? I wouldn't find them acceptable if they were to be used on me. I don't even care much  for old fashioned bullets coming my way.

[Leslie]

I bet you would care if the old fashioned bullets came by close.


Les

[AKIron]

I meant that I wouldn't find even them especially acceptable.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
on the topic of radiation...

Anyone know when the US and UK planning to stop using DU rounds?

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid040402_1_n.shtml

When the rest of the world starts making softer armor.

[Saurdaukar]

You could have one hell of a 4th of July party.

[Nilsen]

Buy ammo that does not need DU to penetrate armor Capt. Pork

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
Buy ammo that does not need DU to penetrate armor Capt. Pork

I was just commenting on the fact that it may not happen any time soon. I'm not a big fan of littering the earth with decaying Uranium either.

[Nilsen]

Yeah i didnt think you liked it

Ammo without DU that can penetrate the same armor exists and i know Norway has stopped using it and are buying rounds without it. Im guessing that the US/UK is doing the same so i was wondering if anyone know the timetable for replacing it. Its easyer for smaller armies to replace their ammo so i guess it would take alot longer for US/UK. Im just afraid that US/UK may expend their DU rounds on "others" and then restocking  with the DU free ammo.