Superbomb ignites Science Dispute

[midnight Target]

If a halfnium bomb is good....

a wholenium bomb is twice as good.









http://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html

[FUNKED1]

BUDDABING!

[Preon1]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I recognize that and touch on it in my response.  The problem is a matter of scale; with enough research, we could probably scale down nuclear weapons to this size.  As well, we could scale up Hafnium to hydrogen bomb levels.  Besides the radioactivity, how is this different?

-- Todd/Leviathn

DMF, I'm not saying the US plans on building city killers (such a strategy WOULD put halfnium weapons on the same level as nukes).  However, a current mission that needs a solution is the destruction of hardened underground bunkers.  Right now, the plan is to put a small yield nuke on a penetrating warhead and detonate it underground.  One major issue blocking that tactic is the fallout inherent in a nuke.  However, if the US can build a bunker buster that can do essentially the same thing without the fallout, then it avoids the 'radioactive taboo'.

I should have clarified when I said 'taboo'.  I meant the use of radioactive or poison weapons, not the destruction of populace.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
By all means we should build this weapon.  If we don't do it, somebody else will.

Reminded me of this:

 -Sik

[FUNKED1]

Yes it is quite rational.

[medicboy]

You are wrong here. The goal is not to get a bigger nuke or more powerfull.
The goal is to make a smaller nuke - say, 100-1000 ton equivalent that would fit inside a mortar shell.

miko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, ok even if they fit a 100 ton nuke into a mortar shell, who is going to be ther poor bastage that gets to drop it in the tube.  100 tons of tnt = 200,000 lbs of tnt, no morter shell that I know of could toss a shell far enough to get away from the blast....   Just a thought.    

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by miko2d
... I wonder how powerful we can make a Hafnium-bomb?

 You are wrong here. The goal is not to get a bigger nuke or more powerfull.
 The goal is to make a smaller nuke - say, 100-1000 ton equivalent that would fit inside a mortar shell.

 miko [/B]

Been there done that, pretty much..

http://www.guntruck.com/DavyCrockett.html

[Udie]

Originally posted by midnight Target
If a halfnium bomb is good....

a wholenium bomb is twice as good.









http://www.privatehand.com/flash/elements.html

RIMSHOT!

[RTR]

All I can say Udie, is thank god they aren't even thinking of using Wholenium. My God, even the thought of it makes me shudder.
Oh the Humanity!

[AKIron]

[Preon1]

Originally posted by AKIron