Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:18, 18 November 2005

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:FARCfailed

List of nuclear powers

India is also a declared nuclear power and has tested a nuclear weapon. It should be added to the list of such countries, but I will leave it to the usual maintainers of this article to edit the page.

"The declared nuclear powers are, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China, India and Pakistan." I'm not sure what makes you think that, with this statement at the top of the article, India isn't listed asw a nuclear power. Nvinen 11:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ignition of the Atmosphere with Nuclear Bombs

"In every above ground nuclear detonation, there is a small chance that the very atoms of oxyegen and hydrogen in the air will ignite, spreading across the earth until the entire atmosphere has burned out."

This was recently added to and reverted out of the article. It is obviously wrong, but I do know where it is coming from. When the bomb was first being developed there were a number of fairly promenant scientists who believed that the fission reaction would not stop once the bomb was detonated, and that the entire earth would be consumed in a chain-reaction atomic fireball. The U.S. went ahead with trinity despite these concerns (war pressures and all) and proved fairly conclusively that it wouldn't happen. Some variations of this theory still float around today in very inaccurate forms (e.g. what was added to the article). Maybe something about this should be added to the article or perhaps to the Manhattan Project article? -Lommer 21:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

done

The version I recall hearing "somewhere" was the minute concern that a runaway nitrogen/oxygen reaction could be started. Seeing as there isn't any hydrogen in the air, for all practical purposes, the nitrogen version is at least a tiny bit more plausible. :) Bryan 05:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The paper http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0009204 mentions the report:

The analysis of Ref. gives convincing arguments against the possibility of a catastrophic chain reaction, based on well established physical principles. It concludes that it is unreasonable to expect a chain reaction propagated by nitrogen-nitrogen fusion reactions, and that an unlimited chain reaction consuming the atmosphere is less likely still. Other possible reactions, involving protons in clouds of steam liberated from the oceans, are also considered and argued to be less dangerous still. Konopinski et al. do note the 'distant probability' that the mode of propagation of the reaction in the atmosphere might be more complicated than their analysis allows, in which case its conclusions might not apply, and they suggest that the complexity of their argument and the absence of a satisfactory experimental basis for it makes further work on the subject highly desirable.

E. Konopinski, C. Marvin and E. Teller, Ignition of the Atmosphere with Nuclear Bombs, Los Alamos Laboratory report LA-602. When the present paper was first drafted, this reference was archived and freely accessible at http://libwww.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00329010.pdf. According to the Los Alamos National Laboratory library, access is presently not permitted, following a directive from the National Nuclear Security Administration. I assume this is a consequence of heightened security concerns since 11.9.01. Patrick 11:39, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

"I assume this is a consequence of heightened security concerns since 11.9.01". All the LA-?? where on the web, but only briefly, a few weeks? maybe, then removed. However, that was BEFORE 11.9.01, roughty the year before, I state as witness.64.168.29.187 08:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are still on the web, but they have been restricted to only users from "select government agencies," even if they have been declassified. It is rather annoying, in my opinion -- a lot of this stuff has even been published before, much less declassified. But alas, such is bureaucracy. --Fastfission 17:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually cached by fast acting citizen, now at http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/index1.html 64.165.202.73 22:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I added some text with the link to Nuclear_explosion#Effects_of_a_nuclear_explosion.--Patrick 01:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Historically, this concern was first breached at the Summer conference held by Oppenheimer in Berkeley in 1942 (I believe Teller brought it up?). Bethe quickly showed it to be inaccurate, if I recall the history correctly, but it still stuck around as a lingering rumor (probably because it is rather poetic in a fatalistic and macabre sense, I assume). --Fastfission 03:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since this was once thought of as fact and discussed by top scientists, although now it seems to be little more than fiction, doesn't it still merit at least being addressed and posted?--David Foster 10:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only if done responsibly. I've added the line "In 1945 there was some initial speculation among the scientists developing the first nuclear weapons that there might be a possibility of igniting the earth's atmosphere with a large enough nuclear explosion. This was, however, quickly shown to be mathematically unlikely enough to be considered impossible, though the notion has persisted as a rumor for many years." which I think does the job. --Fastfission 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

"Atomic weapons, atomic bombs, thermonuclear weapons and hydrogen bombs are all alternative names for nuclear weapons."

I don't think this line is correct - these are different kinds of nuclear weapons, not simply different names for them IIRC? -stewacide

Actually that line is correct because all four of those names commonly refer to nuclear weapons in general - There is of course a distinction between pure fission devices and modern multi-stage fusion weapons, but I believe this destinction is adequately explained in the next paragraph. I thought this sentence was important to put right up front to show people that this entire article referred to devices which can be called any of these names. That way when you want to know about Hydrogen bombs as soon as you start reading this article you realize you are in the right place and do not need to find alternative information.

As a side note - I was pleased to see this article made the brilliant prose page and is being actively edited. -- Trelvis

"all four of those names commonly refer to nuclear weapons in general" would mean that a pure fission device is a kind of "hydrogen bomb"! I changed this. - Patrick 00:53 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

(clarka) Please leave in the link to Nuclear War Survival Skills. I didn't link in the concepts of civil defense or survivalism, but if we're going to talk about the weapons at least we should mention one source of defensive information.

I've just created the neutron bomb page, which used to redirect here. These weapons are reallay very different from fission and hydrogen bombs, perhaps there should be a small bit about them here? I've also linked the one instance of 'neutron bomb' in this article to the new article. -- lommer 04:14 16 May 2003 (UTC)

This article cites test numbers. From which year are these numbers? --Eloquence 07:31 19 May 2003 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that this article has been hacked into incomprehensible pieces recently. Basically all of the science and facts have been relegated to sub articles (design and effects), leaving an over emphasis on piecemeal historical and cultural information. The break off of neutron bomb is an unfortunate side effect - since the new article is inferior to the original information about nuetron bombs within the context of other weapons designs.

I think it would be a much more powerful article if we put the details of what a nuclear weapon is and what it does (design and effects) up front and the history, culture, politics and military use in supporting articles.

Just thought I would share my vision for what this article should be in the hope that some clear vision could be imparted - unfortunately I can't spare the manpower to make this happen right now. trelvis

I have moved a large part of the page to a new article history of nuclear weapons - and have reintroduced a large portion on the effects of a nuclear weapon back into the article. This is an attempt to make the article primarily a description of what a nuclear weapon is and what it does with clear cross links to related topics (history, who has them, what movies are about them, political issues, warfare and strategy, methods of delivery, etc) trelvis 22:15 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I just restored the large portion of the article dealing with effects from the new article nuclear explosion. I think we should cut down some of the gory details (all the numbers and technical details) of this section in the main article and have more detail at the explosion article - but the content should not be cut altogether - eventually this main article should have a quick summary of what the other articles explain in detail.Trelvis 20:43 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The declared nuclear powers are... North Korea

I'd like to see some documentation for that claim. →Raul654 20:39, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to appologise about modifiying the article before checking here. I didn't realise it was a contensious issue. Anyway, I think this article goes very close. It at least documents that they intend to be a nuclear power and that they have processed fuel rods, one of the key components. I will see if I can find a better source. Steven jones 23:14, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great article. I wonder, though, if more attention could be drawn to the human costs and horrors resultant from a nuclear bomb blast. (For example, all the horrible things that happened to people after the bomb in Hiroshima.) Of course, one would have to be careful about keeping NPOV, but I think an objective analysis of the human costs involved with these weapons would be in order. Mike Church 08:07, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have added a Hiroshima aftermath picture. Feel free to adjust it to your liking. →Raul654 16:18, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Introduction

I dislike the new introduction. I think a more general description of what they are is appropriate. As it currently stands, it gets too specific too quickly. →Raul654 20:28, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I added fixed it up. It's a lot better now, but (IMHO) there is still room for improvement. →Raul654 22:58, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar and the ambiguous phrasing. Bensaccount 23:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

I dispute the neutrality of this article because of often reverts of phrasing edits. (Bensaccount)

Just because an article gets edited a lot doesn't mean its a NPOV violation. Please indicated what part of the article you think shows bias. →Raul654 23:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Giving human traits to a nation is a bias. Bensaccount 23:24, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Besides changing "The declared nuclear powers are the" to "Nuclear weapons are posessed by the" and removing two of my sentences (both actions which I disagree with), I didn't see anything else that was lost by reverting. If there was, I apologize.→Raul654 23:09, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

And for the record: "Nuclear weapons have only been used twice against people" - this is factually incorrect. There were people on the ground near most of the early atomic bomb tests, almost all of whom thereafter died of leukemia or cancer. →Raul654 23:13, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Im glad you can discuss after reverting. I also changed bad grammar by the way.

"Anger" is an emotion. Nations dont feel argry. "Nuclear power" is political wording that doesnt belong in a definition. Bensaccount 23:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In reality it really doesn't mean anything related see nuclear power

May I suggest that we move this conversation at Talk:Nuclear weapon instead? It seems a more appropriate place →Raul654 23:20, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Summary

Ok, so to summarize - I accept the article, except for the changes made here.

• Bensaccount removed "A single nuclear weapon is capable of destroying a city. "
  • I think giving the reader an idea of the power of a nuclear bomb is extremely relavant to the article and definitely belongs in the introduction.
• They only been used twice in anger -> twice on cities
  • Ben disputes the neutrality of "in anger". It's a common english phrase - to "fire guns in anger" - IE, with malice. It's incidental that they've only been used on cities twice. The idea is that they were used to intentionally kill people twice - IE, twice in anger. Again, I think it was better the way it was before. →Raul654 23:27, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Point 1. I removed because it was ambiguous (cities can vary in size). It can be put back in if you want. Point 2. I removed because of bias. (Ok you are comparing it to firing guns in anger, its still the same (IN ANGER) (???) ) Bensaccount 23:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) Point 3. See nuclear power

In the english language, it's pretty much accepted that the phrase "nuclear power" can refer either to the energy of harnessed atomic reactions, or the nations capable of building atomic weapons. I don't understand what's objectionable - anyone who knows english should understand what that phrase means, although linking to the wrong one (in this case, the former instead of the latter) is not a good idea.

As far as "in anger" - I still don't see what you are objecting to. It's another common english phrase, synonomous to "with malice". →Raul654 23:41, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I know the meaning of anger and I dont know why you keep defining it and showing examples of its use and giving synonyms. I still object to the word being used (its biased to give human emotions to a nation). Bensaccount 23:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know that this is an old subject, but I wanted to comment on it. "In anger" is an idiom with a separate meaning from "anger" and does not involve giving human emotions to a nation. It is a phrase that is used to distinguish the use of a weapon with the intention of harming people. For example, "firing guns in anger" does not mean that the people firing them were angry. It simply distinguishes firing guns with the intent to harm from firing guns as a test, or for practice. In the same sense, nuclear weapons have been used twice "in anger." This does not imply that the United States was "angry," but instead distinguishes between the use of nuclear weapons as a test. This is a widely used and recognized English idiom and does not constitute POV. The way the paragraph is currently phrased still communicates the meaning but sounds odd. TomTheHand 17:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing - do we want to link to weapon or bomb? I can't think of an instance where a nuclear weapon is not a bomb, so I think the latter (being more precise) is a better idea. →Raul654 23:43, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I can think of only one nuclear weapon offhand that isn't a bomb; a fission-pumped X-ray laser, which was one of the proposed components of the original Star Wars ballistic missile defence system. It has a bomb in it, but the bomb isn't used for its direct explosive effects. None of these were ever actually built, though. Alternately, one could concievably consider a nuclear-powered attack sub or aircraft carrier to be a "nuclear weapon", but I think that's really stretching it. Bryan 23:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so we have one theoritcal weapon and attack craft that use nuclear power to move. If that's the best counter-evidence there is I think we're safe calling them bombs. →Raul654 23:52, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

It depends upon whether you want to use the dictionary definition of "bomb" or the conventional usage. In terms of dictionary definition (the first sentence of the "Bomb" article), anything that explodes is a bomb. In terms of convention it points out that only unpowered, air-dropped weapons are referred to as bombs. There are lots of nuclear weapons which aren't covered by the conventional usage, for example nuclear artillery shells, surface-to-air missiles with nuclear warheads, even air-to-surface and surface-to-surface missiles are not usually referred to as bombs. Personally I don't think it really matters. Nvinen 22:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ben - the article has been changed a lot. Is there anything you still object to, or can we remove the dispute tag? →Raul654 00:01, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi - Thought I would pop in. Not a member, so feel free to ignore... The reason you shouldn't interchangeably use weapon and bomb is militaristic in nature. A 'bomb' is normally applied to a weapons system that is air dropped. NWEPS that are air - dropped or launched usually have a prefix of B (i.e., B83). NWEPS that are mated to reentry vehicles, artillery shells, etc., usually are given a W prefix (i.e, W79). Therefore, its' technically inaccurate. -Shawn Hughes srh@esper.com 12/11/2004

Dirty bomb

I rewrote this paragraph:

Dirty bombs were first announced by the United States of America as neutron bombs intended to kill people while leaving facilities intact. The weapons were deployed in Europe during the closing chapters of the Cold War, for possible use in stopping a Soviet advance into Western Europe. More recently, officials of Western nations have feared insurgent groups might attempt to creat dirty bomb of provisional radioactive materials that are not sufficiently enriched to be used for a nuclear explosive. Officials also fear insurgents might attempt to attack a nuclear facility, using an existing site as an in situ dirty bomb ignited by sabotage or attack.

This paragraph confuses neutron bombs with the present use of dirty bomb. Originally "dirty bomb" merely meant a nuclear weapon that would spread a lot of fallout, but over the last 10 years the term has come to mean a non-nuclear radiological weapon, comparatively much more easy for terrorists to assemble than a nuclear weapon. Neutron bombs use extremely high radiation doses from the blast in order to kill, and don't rely on the type of radiation damage that dirty bombs rely on. Tempshill 20:16, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi - Shawn again. Sort of. A 'neutron bomb' has the added military characteristic of a high neutron flux. The primary kill mechanism is still the ones in non-tweaked NWEPS. -Shawn Hughes srh@esper.com 12/11/2004

The term 'bomb' is not as good as the more general term weapon. 'bomb' has a connotation of a device dropped or used with a timing mechanism. The complex multiple warhead ballistic missiles now used for delivery are not reflected by the simplistic term 'bomb'. The word 'bomb' also has a sense which does not carry the damage done due to radiation - many people refer to a bomb thinking of the blast and incediary effects, but the addition of strong radiation stretches the usual usage. Weapon is the prefered term by governments and technical documents and we should stick with it. Trelvis 00:11, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

hear, hear. So what if the only usable nuclear weapons currently are bombs? Other nuclear weapons have been theorized including the X-ray laser mentioned above and EMP devices using nuclear explosives. To count these out is, imho, wrong. Alex.tan 03:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Dirty bombs, ... can potentially render an area unfit for habitation for *years or decades* after the detonation." Shouldn't that be *potentially millions of years* ? 67.118.116.87 03:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. Generally speaking, the more radioactive an isotope is, the shorter its half-life. So the really nasty stuff will decay quickly. And also, radioisotopes are just chemical elements like any other - they'll wash away with time and rain. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perfectly safe, for example, and the bombs that were dropped there weren't particularly clean. Bryan 05:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As much as I know it, I don't think the problem with dirty bombs is high levels of radioactivity, but low levels for long times which deposit themselves into the food cycle and then accumulate in human bone or lungs or so forth. However I still find the notion of "millions of years" to be pretty unlikely. I think I will add the line, "In the estimation of most analysts, though, the effect would be primarily psychological, and potentially economic if a costly clean-up effort was called for." because that seems to be how most knowledgeable people regard them. --Fastfission 03:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nuclear landmines and handheld nukes

I'd like to see some references for both nuclear landmines and handheld nukes. I've never heard of nuclear landmines and it doesn't sound credible to me. As far as hand-held nukes, in discussions on Al Queda, I've heard reporters say several times that the smallest nuke the US ever managed to build was 160 lbs -- not exactly handheld. If that's true, then this article is wrong. →Raul654 14:19, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Actually there are documented cases of nuclear landmines being deployed by the U.S. and NATO countries in Germany during the Cold War. These were not landmines in the usual sense - more often they were simply remotely detonated nuclear bombs designed to be left behind (possibly buried) during a retreat and detonated once soviet troops moved into the blast range. As far as hand-held nukes are concerned, while the U.S. never developed hand-held nukes (I believe the smallest warhead they ever deployed was the Davy Crockett (nuclear device), the USSR developed a low-yield warhead that could be fit in a briefcase. Many of these were produced, with the idea that agents carrying them could infiltrate the U.S. and then detonate them in large cities. For either of these topics some time spent googling should be sufficient to provide references -lommer 21:15, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

• • I'm adding this a few months after the original comment, but I just wanted to note that it is not really known whether the USSR produces said suitcase bombs; as with many claims relating to the USSR (both before and after its collapse), there are a dearth of documentation at this point and conflicting opinions within the government over the question. --Fastfission 17:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nuclear 'landmines' do exist. There were two built by the US and one by the FSSR. NONE were one-man portable. The Davy Crockett can NOT fit in a briefcase, unless you possess a briefcase the size of two crockpots. :) The smallest NWEPS discussed in the public literature (besides the experimental device Ted taylor tested at NTS)is the smallest (155mm) atomic artillery projectile. Utilized the same physics package, but smaller footprint.Also not one-man deployable. There was NOT a former USSR NWEPS designed to be carried by spetsnaz. You guys do great work here, just wanted to help you. -Shawn Hughes srh@esper.com 12/11/2004

Fusion Nukes and Fission boosters confusion

There was a recent edit by an anonymous account to this paragraph (emphasis added):

is blurred by the fact that they are combined in nearly all complex modern weapons: a smaller fission bomb is first used to reach the necessary conditions of high temperature and pressure to allow fusion to occur. On the other hand, a fission device is more efficient when a fusion core first boosts the weapon's energy.

The words fusion and fission were interchanged in the last sentance. This sentance is very confusing - I thought that no fusion weapons existed that were not detonated by fission reactions? If this is the case, the sentance in it's current form makes no sense. If, OTOH, the sentance was correct before the edit, it is completely redundant and makes no sense. -lommer 19:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The sentence should say that fission weapons are more efficient with a fusion core - this refers to the fission-fusion-fission advanced thermonuclear weapon designs. This paragraph was originally together with a more detailed explanation of these advanced weapons which is now at nuclear weapons design - out of context that sentence may be confusing, but is correct. Trelvis 14:42, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

lommer - what that person is alluding to is the use of a boost gas in smaller NWEPS to enhance yield. The boost gas operates by fusion, which occurs in the center of the implosion-type weapons' core. Think of it as boosted fission. -Shawn Hughes 12/11/2004 srh@esper.com

There are a few different possibilities:

• An implosion-type fission bomb can be made more powerful (by a factor of about 2) by putting fusion fuel in the pit.
• A staged thermonuclear weapon may place some fissile material at the center of the fusion fuel, so that the compression of the fusion material triggers the fission, further compressing the fusion fuel and triggering fusion
• A staged thermonuclear weapon may surround the fusion fuel with fissile material, so that when the fusion explosion occurs, it triggers fission in this extra shell.

I don't know which one the author was talking about. For details see nuclear weapon design and . --Andrew 05:00, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Suitcase bombs

Added note on suitcase bombs in the delivery methods section.

Why? They don't exist. -Shawn Hughes 12/11/2004

Civilian Uses of Nukes

I just realized that there is no information or links in this article pertaining to the (admittedly short-lived) civilian uses of nuclear weapons. I don't think an extensive discussion is neccesary here, but a short blurb with a link to an article that does cover the topic more in-depth is. For those who don't know, I'm not referring to nuclear power plants, I'm actually referring to bombs that were used for excavation and whatnot. IIRC, the Tennessee Valley Authority did some experiments with nukes (there's no mention of it on that page) and I believe that the soviets actually excavated a usable artificial harbour with nukes. As well I know that the US planned a similar harbour in Alaska that never went through. -lommer 22:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The article you're looking for is nuclear explosive. I'll add a link in this article, looks like there isn't one. Bryan 06:01, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

TVA did NOT do any testing of peaceful nuclear weapons. The only test shots were Vela nougat and sedan. PNE's were studied under the 'Plowshare' program. -Shawn Hughes 12/11/2004 srh@esper.com

Change of wording

I change a sentence in the first paragraph from:

Apart from test explosions, nuclear weapons have been used only twice - during World War II by the United States against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

to

Nuclear weapons have been used only twice for war, by the United States against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki duringWorld War II. They have been used many hundreds of times, however, for the nuclear testing undertaken by many countries.

I found the sentence "Apart from test explosions, nuclear weapons have been used only twice," to be something around the lines of "Apart from cows, red meat is not eaten very often," or something absurd like that (it seemed to imply that nuclear weapons have not been used often, when in fact they have been used hundreds, if not thousands, of times in "peace"). And I thought a link to nuclear testing would be useful in that summary, too. --Fastfission 18:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, I find "only" to be POV. At what point does the number of detonations cease to merit this prefix? 5? 10? 25? How about "nuclear weapons have been used only 500 times"? LX 13:48, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Captions

Hi, folks. I took a crack at the captions today. Please look over them for accuracy and NPOV. I tried to follow the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Captions in writing them. Thanks! -- ke4roh 18:23, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if saying that the Nagasaki mushroom cloud lifted nuclear fallout is technically correct; if it is, it's a wording that I've never seen used before. I also am not sure if the head of a mushroom cloud is a "radioactive fireball" technically speaking. But I don't see any NPOV problems, and I don't know for sure if those are accuracy problems, though I'll look through some reliable literature I have and see if similar wording comes up. (another thought I had, unrelated, is that there have got to be better fair use pictures of Hiroshima out there than the one with an ugly watermark on it) --Fastfission 21:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Caption NPOV

There is no need to include "strategic port city" in the description of Nagasaki. It may arguably have been considered as such by the US military establishment at the time but that is by no means the only valid POV. --Bk0 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And just what are you suggesting? -Joseph (Talk) 03:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I suspect that he is suggesting that there are others who do not consider it to have been strategic. No more, no less. I can certainly see his point; IMO the issue of whether Nagasaki was "strategic" is a matter of opinion that should be left to the article on the bombing to work out in detail. Bryan 03:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That is what I'm suggesting. This article isn't about WWII or the bombing of Nagasaki. --Bk0 03:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds revisionist to me. -Joseph (Talk) 03:23, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Howso? It is factual that there is sometimes dispute over the issue, and that it's not entirely clear-cut. It's not Misplaced Pages's place to settle that dispute, just to present the various sides in as NPOV a manner as possible. I would object if the caption described the image as being the "bombing of a non-strategic port". The caption of an image is hardly the place to achieve the kind of detail necessary for addressing such issues, so why not leave it to articles such as Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to deal with? Bryan 03:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Joules or Watts?

The article says: "1lb (0.45kg) of U-235 can release over 36 million million watts of energy."

A user commented "This does not seem correct. A watt is a measure of energy per second. Should this be joules?" I have moved the comment here for discussion. – Quadell ] 19:30, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Definently, I've changed it to joules. My back-on-an-envelope-calculation gives 31 TJ and not 36 TJ, but that's based on an average yield per U-235-nucleus of 170 MeV, while the article assumes 200 MeV. My source is , but I don't know if that is a more reliable number. Can someone with a firmer basis in nuclear physics check this? I have also removed a statement about hydrogen that was recently added. The correct number is 7 MeV. Anyway, it is not relevant since fusion bombs don't work by H-1 fusion. The last part of the sentence was meaningless.Hgrenbor 22:55 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are some parts of the article (and the rest of Misplaced Pages) in joules, others in equivalent of tons of TNT? I know, convention, historical reasons. What I'm getting at , when ton of TNT is mentioned the first time, include it's joule equivalent. (I have to look it up myself.) And maybe list both in the places it's used, eg 'Hiroshima 12,000 tons of TNT, 666 gj' (not the real number). Ton of TNT is a stupid unit of energy, not relatable in your head with anything else, ( except to military planners who are used to computing plane carrying capacities).67.118.116.87 03:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and maybe throw in a MeV equivalent while you're at it. 67.118.116.87 03:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This kind of information should be at the kiloton article, not an article about nuclear weapons in general. --Fastfission 08:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any reason that it's listed as 36 million million joules, as opposed to 36 trillion joules? Sure, a million million emphasizes the size of the explosion a bit more strongly, but a "million million" seems poorly worded and may even be confused as a typo. --12.40.180.17 21:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The british have an antiquated defintion of trillion (and billion) which makes milion-million a bit more explicit. →Raul654 21:47, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

There are prefectly good SI prefixes for 10^6 10^9 10^12 ... etc mega, giga, ... (although million million doesn't offend me, in small doses. 67.118.116.87 03:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So what IS the power of a nuclear detonation? We know the ballpark range for the energy released but in how much time is is released? I think this would be interesting information to add to the article.--Deglr6328 03:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

depends on how long you consider the explosion to last. If you say the explosion is how long the fireball lasts, and it lasts say, a minute, the average power is 36 * 10^12 J/60 s == 6 * 10^11 watts; the article says the nuclear fission reaction is over in 1 microsecond , average power over that microsecond is 36 * 10^12 J/microsecond== 36 * 10^18 watts. I think the total energy is the more meaningful number. 67.118.116.87 03:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think energy is a lot more meaningful too, but it may be possible to actually compute a useful power estimate. For fission reactions, there's a pretty well-defined moment when the mass goes prompt critical and another pretty well-defined moment when it's too diffuse to be prompt critical. For fusion reactions, the fusion part alone can be calculated, and in fact I've seen such a calculation that states that while fusion was actually happening, Tsar Bomba was generating about 1% as much power as the Sun. Now that's a startling number... --Andrew 04:48, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

For how long? A fraction of a picosecond? If you refer to the article on Tsar Bomba, I seriously belive it to be a gross exaggeration. Se Tsar Bomba discussion for details. JOhan Bresssendorff

North Korean nuclear testing

A recent edit changed the rticle to claim that North Korea has performed a nuclear test. Could someone give a reference? I've seen an article (, probably referring to ) claiming they did an above-ground test (mushroom cloud and all) and the US government is somehow hushing it up (see Ryanggang explosion and nuclear testing). I've seen an article () that claims that North Korea did a nuclear test in Pakistan (which would necessarily be underground, since it is supposed to be camouflaged as a Pakistani nuclear test). Neither article is convincing enough that I'm comfortable claiming there was a test in this article. Discussion in North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, with appropriate references, would of coure be fine. So:

Does anyone have a reference for the claim that N. Korea has tested a nuclear weapon? --Andrew 06:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The recent edit was nonsense, I reverted it. If anyone seriously thought North Korea had performed a test, trust me, you'd know, because it'd be on the cover of every news source in the world. There are many reasons why credible sources don't think that North Korea has yet to produce a test (if the Ryanggang explosion was nuclear it would have been very easy for labs all over the world to tell based on its fallout; I've never heard anybody credible report on this supposed Pakistani test, and there's no reason to think that North Korea was further ahead in their program than Pakistan was). When they test, you'll know. --Fastfission 20:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antimatter weapons

I'm just not sure that antimatter weapons belong on this page. The section repeatedly admits that they are not nuclear weapons. The only things they have in common with nuclear weapons are that they're "high-tech" and could make a big boom. Moreover, it may not be possible to turn antimatter into an efficient weapon because the energy release of such a weapon would be less than the energy required to create it (because creation of antimatter would not be 100% efficient). Still, I don't want to completely erase this section without some kind of consensus.

Either way, I've moved the sentence about a hypothetical method of storing antimatter over to the Antimatter weapon page. TomTheHand 14:16, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Antimatter annihilation can be a kind of nuclear reaction, though; if an antiproton hits the nucleus of an atom it's going to result in an atom with one fewer protons (and quite possibly smash the nucleus up even more than that from the resulting energy release and side reactions). Also, the efficiency is irrelevant as far as weapons are concerned since they're not being used to generate energy, only store it compactly and release it in a sudden burst. Bryan 03:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you on both counts. Although an antiproton could annihilate a proton, thereby resulting in a different kind of atom, I don't think you can really make the case that an antimatter weapon is deriving its energy from nuclear reactions (the definition of a nuclear weapon). I see your point about possibly splitting the nucleus from there, but you're just making guesses at this point to try to justify the inclusion of antimatter weapons. I really don't think that you can argue that antimatter weapons are a kind of nuclear weapon, and the only argument that can be made is that they may belong here because they could be a "next step."

In addition, I think efficiency is very relevant here. The same amount of energy invested could produce much more powerful, or much more numerous, nuclear weapons. They would be much cheaper to deliver than antimatter weapons, even taking into account their greater size. The argument I was trying to make is that antimatter weapons, because they would never be efficient to produce, would never make good weapons.

I don't think antimatter weapons belong here because they 1. are not nuclear weapons, and many pages which describe antimatter and antimatter weapons spend time describing how they are UNLIKE nuclear reactions, 2. are theoretical, and 3. may never come into use. TomTheHand 14:51, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

This page already mentions how they are different from other nuclear weapons and that their grouping here is somewhat uncertain. Since it's a matter of definition and reasonable people can differ on it, I think it's quite reasonable to have a mention here. Most of the material about them is already over at the antimatter weapon article anyway. As for the fact that they're theoretical and may never come into use doesn't stop there from being a section on cobalt bombs here. And finally, no, efficiency really isn't of primary importance. You could use the same amount of energy to produce millions of rounds of rifle ammunition but that doesn't mean that rifle ammunition is the right thing to use for a job. Someone who's building a weapon is not going to be worrying about whether he can use it to generate enough power to pay for itself, he's going to worry about whether it can destroy enough to pay for itself. Whether antimatter bombs can do that is a much more complex issue than simply comparing joules in vs. joules out would suggest. Bryan 01:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it is a matter of definition and reasonable people can differ on it. Since there seems to be an agreement that the information should go on this page, I'll quit trying to get it removed ;-) I still disagree with you; rifle ammunition isn't comparable, whereas nuclear weapons and antimatter weapons can be compared. With a nuclear weapon, you can destroy more for the same amount of investment, and this will be the case as long as fissionable materials are available. When I said that antimatter weapons are theoretical and may never be used, I meant that there is only a theoretical potential for making antimatter weapons, and it may never be possible to produce them because of their inefficient use of resources. Cobalt bombs can be produced, whereas antimatter weapons cannot, and so the former should be included and the latter should not, in my opinion.

Sorry, didn't mean to continue with this so much. I'm no longer trying to remove the antimatter section, but I have enjoyed the debate. Thanks for the discussion. TomTheHand 14:19, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, that's the whole point of talk: pages. :) Although I think it's reasonable to have a section on antimatter weapons here, if you think the current one is still too extensive or detailed I certainly wouldn't object to moving some more of its contents over to the antimatter weapon article; I figure one paragraph is about enough for a decent summary but there's currently two paragraphs here. Bryan 00:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Help! Tell me nuclear yield in DISTANCE!

Can someone tell me how much distance is affected by H-bombs (in miles), say 50 KT? Give me a radius or graph please.

Here's a page that might help: Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator. Plugging in .05 MT (50 kt), we get: a fireball with a radius of 160 m (525 ft), which kills nearly everybody within a 1 km (0.6 mi) radius, causes massive structural damage for 2.7 km (1.7 mi), and third-degree burns to exposed people within a 3.4 km (2.1 mi) radius. Fun! --Fastfission 06:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In popular culture

I moved this section to a separate article, Nuclear weapons in popular culture. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest. --BM 12:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fuse vs. fuze

A sort of consensus had been achieved before that the use of the spelling "fuze" is appropriate in this article. In American English, "fuze" refers to a device which sets off a bomb. "Fuse" is more ambiguous. The American military uses "fuze," and so this page, which is written in American English, should use it as well. TomTheHand 15:59, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please see article fuze for more information. It is a redirect to fuse (explosives) so that all possible definitions use the same spelling, but the article itself is pretty clear that "fuze" is the spelling most commonly used in the military for a device that sets off an explosive. "Fuse" is not incorrect, but "fuze" is less ambiguous and more appropriate here. TomTheHand 16:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking one little fact: this isn't "in the military" and it especially isn't "in the U.S. military". Misplaced Pages articles are aimed at the general public. The fact that the relevant Misplaced Pages article is in fact named fuse (explosives) has some weight as to what we should use here, though it is not determinative. The fact that "fuse" is the normal spelling in American English and British English and Canadian English and Australian English or whatever is a pretty good indication of what we should be using here. "Fuze" is something more likely to be used to name a rock band somewhere. Choosing American English is acceptable; minority jargon of the denizens of a particular field doesn't seem to be in the same category. I'd suggest mentioning both spellings the first time the word occurs, and "fuse" thereafter. Gene Nygaard 17:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Nygaard. -Lommer | 18:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about a military subject, and as such, I believe the military spelling is most appropriate. The use of the spelling "fuze" will not cause confusion, and it is more correct when you're speaking of the device which detonates a weapon. Nobody is going to read "fuze" and say "What the heck is that?" It's not as if I'm suggesting that we replace all references to the word "fuse" with "advanced explosive initiation device." We're dealing with the equipment used by denizens of a particular field, so the use of their jargon is appropriate.

The following search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=fuze+site%3Awww.army.mod.uk&btnG=Search indicates to me that "fuze" is not just American military English. It's British military English as well. Do you need me to try to determine if the Canadian and Australian militaries use "fuze" as well, or is this enough? TomTheHand 20:20, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

An additional point I'd like to make is that there is a military distinction between "fuse" and "fuze." A "fuse" is something you light to set off a cannon, whereas a "fuze" is a more advanced mechanical or electronic device for detonating a bomb. "Fuse" may be the common civilian form, but I suspect that has something to do with the fact that civilians use "fuses" (to light fireworks, etc) and not "fuzes." TomTheHand 20:23, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Fuse (explosives) for some discussion of this, including the fact that about four online dictionaries (including the OED) failed to clear up the usage.

I think that it is in fact the case that a fuse is a simple device for setting off explosives (for example, a burning string) and a fuze is a detonator mechanism. This is complicated, I think, because ordinary folks don't actually worry about such things and call everything "fuse" (or "detonator" or something else entirely).

In any case I think that the more specific usage is appropriate here, partly because of the happy coincidence that their spellings are so similar people will assume they know what a fuze is.

I have, however, no references at all on the correct usage of fuse vs. fuze, other than some casual Google browsing. --Andrew 21:25, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Almost all historical literature in the history of science talks about the development of the "proximity fuze." I think we should keep it with the standard nomenclature rather than defining Misplaced Pages as some sort of zone where we use whatever spelling we want. --Fastfission 22:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google

• "proximity fuse"   7,020 hits
• "proximity fuze"     884 hits

We would be keeping with standard nomenclature with "fuse". Gene Nygaard 22:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Google is the source we want to use here to determine our nomenclature. This isn't a case of majority rule. I believe we should be using the nomenclature used by those in the field in question (military science). TomTheHand 21:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The standard nomenclature used by historians is "fuze". We would not be keeping with the standard nomenclature, we'd be keeping with the Google nomenclature. I think this is a really stupid thing to waste time arguing about. There is no debate on this in the historical literature or the military literature -- the "z" is universal there. I think that's what ought to count. --Fastfission 00:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It takes hardly any additional effort with the Google results to prove that Fastfission and TomTheHand are just bullshitting in their false claims of an universal usage by either historians or by "military literature". Gene Nygaard 00:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to claim "universal usage." You can find plenty of examples of fuse and fuze being used side by side in the exact same page from sheer apathy. However, I am going to say that the proper spelling in this case, according to military science, is "fuze," and it's going to stay that way on this page. I'm also going to say that I find your attitude and language inappropriate, and I'm not going to participate in this awful discussion with you any more. I'll leave you with some links:

US Department of Defense page, giving NATO's definition of "fuze": http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/natoterm/f/00509.html

Merriam-Webster lists the definition in question as "usually fuze": http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fuze

American Heritage Dictionary lists the definition in question as "often fuze" and gives Jane's International Defense Review as its source for this spelling: http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/F0372700.html

Globalsecurity.org explains the conventions in "fuse" vs "fuze": http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/glossary.htm#F

Finally, our own Misplaced Pages article fuze has some discussion on this topic. They are often used interchangeably, but in military science, there is a distinction (which FastFission and I have not pulled out of thin air), and that distinction should be left on this page. I will admit that coming into this, I did not know the full background of the distinction. I assumed that it was simply American English, but after some research I've found that the distinction is military English, used in at least the US and the UK. TomTheHand 03:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gene -- I've got no investment in Fuze Co. or anything else that would give me a great reward for telling you what I've seen in my work. Take it for what's its worth, but there's no need to be snappy about it. If you really want to invoke playing around with google results, try restricting the search to military to .gov and .mil domains; fuze wins out. But it honestly matters very little to me either way what it says on Misplaced Pages. --Fastfission 04:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wins how? You claimed unanimity, and the most you can is a bare majority. Limiting it to .mil and .gov, I get about a 7:5 ratio for "proximity fuze":"proximity fuse", compared to about 4:33 overall. But that specific terminology probably would find all articles discussing devices of that type, so it would be hard to tell which spelling predominates for that type of device. And limiting it to .gov and .mil, I get a "fuze":"fuse" ratio of about 1:36. Gene Nygaard 19:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, considering it is used a total of one time in the entire article, I could really care less either way. We could even come up with an alternative phrasing to avoid it altogether. --Fastfission 01:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry to pop in again. Fuse is incorrect. I am a Bomb Technician, and in the ordnance field, fuze is the correct spelling. I find that many Wikipedians attempt to resource stylebooks and dictionaries on how to spell and resolve problems better referenced in military texts. ALL established military forces observe a HUGE difference between fuze and fuse, like they observe a difference between magazine and clip. In the discussion of a NWEP, fuze is correct. BTW, quoting Google is a poor resource. ANYone can make a webpage. If a wrong answer is repeated a thousand times, does that make it closer to correct?

-Shawn srh@esper.com 7/4/2005

Effects of neutron bombs

User 65.204.30.3 added the following paragraph:

The actual effect of a Neutron Bomb is exactly the same as a standard nuclear weapon: A massive delivery of explosive energy. The difference is that the half life of the radioactivity is measured in nanoseconds, rather then in months or years, and while an occupying force would need to wait for several months until the radioactivity of a "standard" nuclear weapon depleted enough for troops to enter in full NBC (Nuclear / Biological / Chemical) survival gear, a force employing a neutron bomb would instead need to only wait a few days. Though still every bit as destructive as a standard nuclear weapon, neutron bombs have less damage-potential in the long term sense, as most of the fallout generated by a ground-burst neutron bomb will have depleted to safe levels long before it actually reaches the ground.

I've reverted the edit because it's essentially incorrect. I'm going to write a little bit about nuclear weapons, enhanced radiation weapons, how they work, and the reasons for their development. This may result in some good information for the article... or maybe not ;-) I'm going to repeat the article some to remind people of the relevant information:

As is mentioned in the article, as weapon yield increases, the amount of ionizing radiation becomes less important. For small weapons, like the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the radius of dangerous ionizing radiation is larger than the radius of deadly blast and thermal radiation, so many casualties resulted from radiation even though there was little fallout. However, as yield becomes larger, ionizing radiation becomes irrelevant because people close enough to suffer a dangerous dose of radiation will have been killed by blast.

Now, thermonuclear weapons are fairly clean when used in high airbursts. However, in low airbursts or ground bursts, a significant amount of material is sucked into the fireball and irradiated, then redistributed as dangerous fallout.

Blast and thermal radiation are very effective in destroying soft structures, but they do a pretty poor job of destroying tanks and armored vehicles. As a result, regular nuclear weapons are a poor choice against armored vehicles. In order to destroy armor with regular nuclear weapons, you pretty much need to resort to low airbursts or ground bursts. This causes severe fallout.

Now, enhanced radiation weapons came about when it was noticed that with certain modifications, a bomb could produce a smaller proportion of blast and thermal radiation, and a greater proportion of ionizing radiation. Better, the ionizing radiation would be more in the form of neutrons and x-rays, which penetrate very well. According to globalsecurity.org, "a standard fission weapon's total energy output would be partitioned as follows: 50% as blast; 35% as thermal energy; and 15% as nuclear radiation. An ER weapon's total energy would be partitioned as follows: 30% as blast; 20% as thermal; and 50% as nuclear radiation. Thus, a 3-kiloton ER weapon will produce the nuclear radiation of a 10-kiloton fission weapon and the blast and thermal radiation of a 1-kiloton fission device." In addition, it's thought that enhanced radiation weapons have not been developed to the extent that they could be, and it's possible that the proportions could be adjusted further.

This is extremely useful, because you can use many of these devices in high airbursts and blanket an area with neutrons and x-rays, which would penetrate armor and kill the soldiers inside. Very little fallout would result because you'd be using high airbursts, so the area would be safe for transit within a few hours. However, objects like the enemy tanks would still be dangerously radioactive for several days, so while they would be physically undamaged, they would be unusable.

Hope this clears up some misconceptions about "neutron bombs." I'd like to get a little discussion going on the topic, to get MY misconceptions cleared up and put together some information that can be placed into the article or into a separate article on enhanced radiation weapons. TomTheHand 21:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Moving merging, deleting on 22/04

I've moved alot of the information on this article to Nuclear explosions. Why? Because this page is getting ridiculously huge. Even as we say that Nuclear Explosion is the main article, a look over shows that this article contains more and more recently updated stuff - and that most of the information are simply repeated, verbatim on other pages. (The Fallout section is also an example of this. But it isn't as bad, and I haven't edited it.)

In my mind, this is an article about nuclear weapons. In the prescence of a dedicated article, the effects section on this page should only be a brief summary, and a redirection to more detailed info. If we allow this article to grow too much, we undermine the ease of use of the information on offer, and mess up the content creation process.

I don't know how good my edits are, though. Given the volume of stuff, there may have been some collateral damage. Would be nice if people check up over the remaining carnage...--Fangz 20:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is sound, and in fact I think it might be a good idea to cut even more drastically, so that there is no possible doubt in the reader's mind that this is not the article to put more information about blast effects. At the least I'd be inclined to de-section it so that it doesn't fill up the TOC - small sections look tantalizing to edit, and if you hop directly to a subsection, you might never see the "main article" notice. --Andrew 01:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of shunting off to other articles could be done in order to make this a more broad overview (i.e. in Misplaced Pages:Summary style). Currently the emphasis is on design, effects, and delivery. I think if those were shrunken up a bit, something like a small history section could be added, along with a small section about their political and ethical issues. But in any event, yes, I'm extremely happy with taking out the technical data and putting it into more specialist articles. --Fastfission 01:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added a very brief history section which should hit at the main points covered and to be covered in the history of nuclear weapons article (which I still haven't had a good chunk of time to work on). --Fastfission 00:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just took the chainsaw to it. The non-summaries are preserved on the relevant talk pages. I expect the summaries need work. --Andrew 16:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

You did a great job! --Fastfission 17:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Delivery

It would be nice to move the delivery section to its own article; at the moment it constitutes the bulk of this page. But I don't really know if it would make a reasonable article. --Andrew 16:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think an article on Nuclear weapons delivery would be great, actually. I'll see if I have time to start it up and then port this info over there. The various forms of delivery have lots of implication for wartime strategy, testing, design, proliferation, etc., have been involved in a number of big political controversies (i.e. the MX Missile Debate in the 1980s), and a number of treaties (i.e. MIRVs being used to circumvent restrictions on the number of missiles which don't specify the number of warheads as a separate concern). --Fastfission 17:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ballotechnics

(Discussion moved to Talk:Ballotechnics) --Fastfission 22:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Flares

What are these flares (smoke trails) on some of the nuclear explosion photos called - i know there is an article here on the english wikipedia that discusses them. --Abdull 22:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd guess it's for optical tracking of the blast wave. Where's the article? Link? --Shaddack 00:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are used for tracking the blast wave. There is a nice page on them here. --Fastfission 01:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm gonna put up an article called Smoke trails. --Abdull 00:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

EMP

I didn't see any mention of EMP (electromagnetic pulse) in the article. Can someone add it?

Done. --Fastfission 00:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Cobalt Bomb

Cobalt bomb redirects here, but there's no mention of these bombs on the page any more. Maybe the redirect should go to Dirty bomb, but that only mentions the cobalt bomb briefly in the middle of a paragraph. -- Jrstewart 07:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the content on "salted bombs" has moved to Nuclear weapon design. The redirect should go there in my opinion. TomTheHand 15:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

MOAB?

The MOAB is about 8000 kilos of high explosive (HE), which is 8 metric tons. Tiny nukes, such as the one dropped on Hiroshima, are in the 10-20 kiloton (KT) range (i.e. 10,000-20,000 metric tons of TNT). Even if the HE used in the MOAB is more powerful than TNT, it isn't by much, and so the MOAB probably weighs in at about .008 KT, which is a sneeze compared to a nuke. I'm going to revise the sentence to make the comparison more useful. There is talk of "suitcase nukes," but even they would come in at about .1 KT, so it's still not even remotely close. You're still talking about hundreds of MOABs to be the equivalent of one baby nuke.

btw, thanks fastfission...you lived up to your name and edited it faster than i could, and yours is less wordy that what I was going to do (comparison to MOAB and Grand Slam etc.). Binkymagnus 19:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No problem -- it made sense once you pointed it out. --Fastfission 02:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What you're failing to understand here is that the MOAB doesn't just contain a more powerful conventional explosive; it exploits the chemical energy of its payload in a way that is entirely different from a conventional HE bomb. The MOAB is a so-called "thermobaric" or "fuel-air-explosive" which means, essentially, that instead of incorporating oxygen into the explosive at the molecular level as in TNT (which reduces payload), the MOAB exploits atmospheric oxygen over the target to effect the very rapid combustion reaction that is an explosion. Briefly, the fuel the bomb contains is first spread by a bursting charge into a very fine mist throughout a large volume of atmosphere over the target and, once this fuel-air aerosol is achieved, detonated by a second charge to create a tremendously powerful shockwave that propagates extremely rapidly. This is in contrast to a conventional HE bomb in which detonation only happens within the relatively small volume of the explosive contained within the bomb itself. Thus your reasoning that the yield is only about 0.008 kT because the bomb contains only 8000 kg is really comparing apples to oranges, because, unlike traditional bombs, the explosive power of the MOAB _is_not_limited_ by the chemical energy of the explosive it contains. This is a relatively common error; I have seen it, for instance, in an op-ed piece on MSNBC.

A couple of points: First, the fact that a bomb does not have to carry its own oxygen does not make it any more relevant on a page on nuclear weapons. Second, do you have a source stating that the MOAB is a thermobaric bomb? Globalsecurity.org states that the MOAB contains either tritonal or a slurry of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminum, and our own page on tritonal says that it's used in the MOAB. TomTheHand 18:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

as noted in the previous entry here (and per the Global Security site), the MOAB uses either a gelled slurry explosive or tritonal. both of which have relatively high thermobaric effects. But the MOAB is not/not an FAE. Looking at the mpeg of a MOAB test on the global security site, based solely on the size of the intial fireball, it certainly seems that the MOAB has enhanced thermobaric effects (either from the aluminum powder in tritonal or due to the GSX). But of course, a low quality mpeg is a poor way to judge such things. anyway, the bottom line is, while the MOAB makes a big boom, a nuke makes a ! REALLY REALLY BIG BOOM !, and they are not really worth comparing beyond that. If a MOAB went off next to a nuke, even a small one, you wouldn't notice. Binkymagnus 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapon Stewardship

USSTRATCOM is the steward command of US nuclear weapons.

Okay. I'll add that to the "Agencies" section of Nuclear weapons and the United States, which is where it really belongs. Thanks. --Fastfission 21:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. We are new to Misplaced Pages and are just starting to figure out how things are organized. --JamesGraybeal 22:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

mini nukes

For perhaps five years there have been press reports about the development of "mini nukes" for "bunker busting" using "hydrogen". These stories have become active again. I now realise that there is something physical in this because by controlling the mixture, dilution and size of a fusion bomb core the fusion component can be reduced to any value down to zero; but there would remain the fission detonator so we are down to an atom bomb. A mini nuke implies an alternative method of detonation. How does this work ? This appears relevant to proliferation, supervision amd nuclear power.

It sounds like what you are talking about are not true hydrogen bombs but various types of boosted weapons. Boosting increases efficiency of weapons which means that you can use much lower amounts of fissile material, which along with improvements in explosive lenses, would certainly allow for increased miniaturization. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator is supposed to range from a sub-kiloton to 340 kilotons in

performance, both of which are well in the range of previous nuclear weapons tests. It is not hard to get down below a kiloton -- you could probably do it by purposefully fizzling -- but it is fairly wasteful in terms of energy per dollar, as I understand it. So I'm not sure there needs to be an alternative method of detonation. If there are methods of detonation not discussed in the nuclear weapons design article, they are not known in the public domain. --Fastfission 16:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

ogg file does not work?

i downloaded the codec and tried playing it on windows media player. however it does not display video and crashes out when i close the window. when i try to run it on jet audio, it does not work either, there is no video and it crashes out when i attmept to close the window. can anyone fix the ogg file there? -edit- both quicktime and jet audio play other ogg files properly, so its probably a problem with the ogg file itself.

Improvement suggestion

I think we should drop the weapons delivery section and turn it into an article about nuclear weapons and policy/politics. I've already dumped the current content at Nuclear weapon delivery systems. The changes in delivery systems (and how they affect strategy, etc.) can be integrated into the article without as many details (especially since only one or two nations at most have all of these delivery systems). Additionally, a separate section for proliferation might be worthwhile as well. Thoughts? --Fastfission 18:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Maximum theoritical yield of a nuclear weapon

Tried to add something like "The theoretical maximum yield is thought to be around a hundred megatons" near "to the record Tsar Bomba created by the Soviet Union." in the "Effects of nuclear weapons" part. which was changed to "to the record Tsar Bomba created by the Soviet Union which had a theoretical maximum design yield of around a hundred megatons." which is very true, but I intended to write about the maximum yield of nuclear weapons in general. It might indeed be confusing to put this next to the tsar bomba. If I'm not mistaken (that is, if there really is a theoritical maximum yield), it might be informative to put it somewhere? The only reference I found about this is p.402 (footnote) of

• Rhodes, Richard. Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. Simon and Schuster, New York, (1995 ISBN 0684824140)

Until the Classical Super model was discarded, it was thought that thermonuclear devices could be of unlimited yield, relevant only to the quantity of D+T put next to it. Am I misguided?

• • The yield of a multi-stage device can be as arbitrarily large as you are stupid enough to make it. The Tsar Bomba was derated at the last moment in a fit of commonsence by its makers who replaced the tamper. DV8 2XL 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've never heard anything about the Tsar Bomba being the largest possible yield (I've never heard that there necessarily was a largest possible yield from a staged device), but it was the largest weapon created, whether you go by its theoretical maximum (with the uranium tamper) or the level at which it was tested (half size). --Fastfission 20:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"slaughter"

the wiki is one of the more shameful that i have seen. one of the pivotal members of the manhattan project has said that the destructive power of atomic/nuclear weapons is so great that they're only possible purpose is massive slaughter of civilians. it should be obvious to anyone: a multimegaton weapon represents the complete opposite of controlled, 'precision' warfare. i once put his quote into the wiki, since it's obviously a crucial part of any survey of nuclear weapons, especially considering the particular commentator's credentials. but apparently, a disturbing fact that finds its way into a wiki is deemed unsuitable, or "POV", by the stewards here, and erased in short order. quite disgracefully there seems to be no use to recovering the information and re-contributing it in its proper place.

at the time when i added the citation, i also clarified the passage that compares the weapons used against hiroshima and nagasaki to "tactical" weapons. that notion is an ill-conceived argument that has arisen from the fact that the destructive yield of those weapons was comparable to modern "tactical" weapons, and does not remotely approach the destructive potential of modern "strategic" weapons. what is the point of that passage? the two weapons were limited by the technology available at the time, they were not limited by "tactical" considerations. but yet again, if i add that-- which is not just a caveat, but a crucial fact-- it will be erased in short order. this is one of the more disheartening examples of wiki contributors being unable to admit into discussion the more disturbing and essential facts of a particular subject. --anon

• All things added to Misplaced Pages are stored in its "history" and can indeed be recovered. But Misplaced Pages has a rigid standard of Neutral Point Of View, which generally prevents tirades for or against any particular thing from getting into articles (it would be just as inappropriate to have a rant against nuclear weapons as it would be to have a rant for one). I don't know what your particular addition was, so I can't offer any advice on that. I took a look at the "tactical" note again and tried to improve it. Anyway, I think you'll find, if you stick around a bit and put in an honest and good faith effort, that things are a bit more open than you are characterizing them, and that a little polite discussion on a talk page can work a lot better than an annoyed rant. --Fastfission 06:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I found your edit. The problem is that, for one thing, you projected Szilard's (extremely particular and biased) point of view into a generalized one. Instead of saying, "strategic weapons are defined as such and such. Some people, such as Szilard, have said that they are such and such a way," you said that "Strategic weapons are, as Szilard said, used for genocide." More or less. That's not NPOV under any definition, any more than writing, "Strategic weapons are, as Curtis LeMay said, used to protect freedom" would be. The use of words like "frightening" is not in an encyclopedic style, either. You may want to review Misplaced Pages policy on style and POV before trying to contribute, because otherwise, yes, it will look like people are just censoring you, even though that's pretty far from the truth. --Fastfission 06:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

A-bomb

A-bomb has a seperate article, even though A-Bomb (small B) redirects here, can someone who knows more about whats going on here sort it out thanks! Martin 22:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's a poorly written cut-and-paste (by the formatting in Edit) redundant effort that was once deleted and redirected here but has since been restored. It is crying out for an AfD, but before I put it up, I would like to see if this idea has any support here. DV8 2XL 23:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's badly written, inaccurate and very badly formatted. However, if the information it contains is not a copyvio, it could find a home somewhere on Misplaced Pages. I don't think that much detail belongs on either nuclear weapon or nuclear weapon design,

_____________________________________________________________________________

but if some extraneous stuff was removed and the article were cleaned up it would be a good start for an article on fission weapon or fission bomb for people who want more detail than nuclear weapon design offers.  

That is exactly what it was intended to be. Tmayes1999

I listed it on Pages Needing Attention, so hopefully it will get some Wiki love. TomTheHand 23:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is, at best, repetitive of information already better presented in other articles. There are a number of simple errors on it which do not bode well for the other content in it. It should just be redirected here. The detail is mostly superfluous and speculative; it is material for specialist websites and not encyclopedias. If such detail is really desired, better named articles would be things like gun-type fission bomb and implosion-type fission bomb, not the ridiculous "A-bomb", which is an abbreviated form of a name which was non-specialist even when it was first used. --Fastfission 17:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that this article has been deleted before, and that A-Bomb is already a redirect, I think we can safely just turn A-bomb into another redirect and politely remind the editor who changed it to check other pages and article history first. --Christopher Thomas 21:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the A-bomb article. It was a very good article and the information in it was very accurate and very complete overall . I garuntee that this is so. We have here effectively a bunch of no good vandals, and idiots who keep wrongfully deleting the A-bomb article and redirecting it to the nuclear weapon or nuclear weapon design article . It is not satisfactory to lump all nuclear weapons into a single nuclear weapons article. Atomic bombs, Hydrogen bombs, Nuetron bombs , et el are sufficiently different from each other that each in fact deserves its on detailed article in wickiepedia. Tmayes 1999. I am very very angry about this matter. Tim

• Tim, you've been formatting articles poorly, spelling things wrong, and replacing well-written sections with things like "The most common method of detonating an A-bomb is called the implosion method. The implosion method is superior to the gun method of detonating an A-bomb." You had a large number of factual errors in your A-bomb article despite your "garuntee" (you claimed the last US nuclear test was 1994, it was actually in 1992; you claimed current worldwide stockpiles were around 100,000, they are actually around 20,000; etc.), and in the end it was apparently just a dump for you of pseudo-precise values from other websites. I don't think your "A-bomb" article was anything to be excited about, and frankly I'm not very thrilled about your edits to Nuclear weapon design. They are misformatted (you've been asked at least twice to try and correct this), they are full of spelling, grammar, and formatting errors, and you have been replacing standard terminology with antiquidated phrases like "A-bombs". Whether or not fission weapon design needs its own devoted article is a good question, but your approach is thoroughly wrong-headed, and calling people who have, in very good faith, tried to contact you, work with you, and correct your errors "vandals and idiots" is not a very good approach either. --Fastfission 02:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the a-bomb article should be merged with nuclear weapon or nuclear weapon design, or deleted and turned into a redirect. Either way, it definitely does not deserve its own article. An A-bomb is the non-expert reference to anything explosive that has a nuclear component, and this should not be allowed to exist on wikipedia in my opinion. If anything, mention that there are nicknames for certain nuclear weapons, such as A-bombs, or atomic bombs, etc..., this could be done by having a seperate article for nicknames or briefly mentioning them if it seems useful. If you want to expand on certain bombs, do so, then the nuclear weapon design article can have excerts from the larger article. These already exist for certain designs, such as the Teller-Ulam design. Also, many of the bombs listed above are just the layman terms for bombs that are called different names by experts: A-bomb=nuclear weapon, hydrogen bomb=thermonuclear weapon, etc..Lcolson 04:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You might want to cut-and-paste this down to the "Notice of Request for Comment" section, as that's where most of the active discussion on the fate of A-bomb is. --Christopher Thomas 17:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I created the A-bomb article because an A-bomb is very specific kind of nuclear weapon that has very specific characteristics that are unique to fission type nuclear weapons. It has played a very specific role in history of very great importance.That is why is needs its own article. Furthermore I created the A-bomb because the nuclear wepons articles in wickipedia had the following flaws. 1. There were numerous errors in grammar, and sentence structure in those articles. 2. Those nuclear articles are too general,to vague ,and inspecific . 3. Those nuclear weapon articles contained certian important nuclear physics errors, and specifly they contain nuclear weapon physics errors. 4. Prior to creating the A-bomb article I tried several times to correct the physics errors, and the grammar errors in the nuclear weapons articles. 5. The A-bomb article was created by me to fix the problems mixed above.

What have here is some immature megalomanic , no good kids with an unreasonable and rationaly absurd, attitude trying to inflate their ego by abusing me, and doing me wrong by first blocking the edits made by me to correct the errors they made in the nuclear weapons articles, and then by blocking my A-bomb article. tmayes

Revert

I reverted this article back to the last good verion. I also redirected A bomb back to this place. Tmayes1999, if I were you I'd count the number of other editors that you are up against in this matter before taking any actions. DV8 2XL 04:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice of Request for Arbitration

As it does not appear that an amicable solution to the contention over A-bomb will appear, I've filed for a Request for Arbitration. Tmayes1999, Christopher Thomas, Fastfission, and DV8 2XL are named as involved parties. --Christopher Thomas 04:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I want my A-bomb article restored and left alone by the people who have been trying to delete it or redirect it. THAT IS ALL THAT ASK FOR . THESE PEOPLE WERE IN THE WRONG TO TAMPER WITH MY A-BOMB ARTICLE. i AM VERY ANGRY ABOUT THIS MATTER. FROM ARBRITATION : i WANT JUSTICE. I WANT THIS GREAT WRONG CORRECTED. TMAYES1999

I would suggest that you look over Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles before you continue, it might save you a great deal of trouble DV8 2XL 04:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Concerns with this article

The version of the nuclear weapon article that is here is not very good. It is vague,insuficiently detailed, incomplete, and has some factual inaccuracys, and physics errors in it. Some parts of this article are very unsatifactory.* It needs revision. Tmayes1999

I've moved this comment to where it should be on the talk page. In the future, please 1) start new threads at the bottom of the page, 2) make a heading for them, and 3) sign and datestamp your posts using four "~" marks. These are automatically converted into a signature for you. --Christopher Thomas 20:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Tim, if you'd like to describe in a little more detail what the "factual inaccuracys" and "physics errors" are, that would always be appreciated. As for being incomplete -- the sections are intentionally summaries (see Misplaced Pages:Summary style), and they link to more detailed articles. --Fastfission 04:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice of Request for Comment

I've added the following request to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology:

Talk:A-bomb and Talk:Nuclear weapon - Should a separate A-bomb article exist, or is it better merged with Nuclear weapon and/or Nuclear weapon design?

Please discuss this question here. --Christopher Thomas 21:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The A-bomb article should not exist. The term itself is passé, and there can be nothing in the way of content that would not be a repeat of what is here. DV8 2XL 21:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The A-bomb article should certainly not exist. Initially I felt that it might be a good idea to move the article to fission weapon, but I've come to feel that there is, at this time, no need for a separate article. A-bomb should be merged with nuclear weapon design and if, in the future, nuclear weapon design becomes too long, it could sprout some detail articles. TomTheHand 21:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I believe that that an article called "atom bomb" might be useful to describe the specific early atom bombs rather than nuclear weapons in general. The phrase "atom bomb" is a little out-of-date now but connotes the earliest types of nuclear weapons and is worth a historical treatment. That said, there is already a lot of nice material at manhattan project, fat man, and little boy -- so probably the most appropriate format would be one or two paragraphs containing links out to the relevant in-depth articles and (of course) to nuclear weapon. zowie 22:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough to say about the phrase "atom bomb" to warrant an article. It could have an entry in Wiktionary for sure, but I'm not sure what else. But anyway, this is a separate question from whether or not a separate article on fission weapons should be at the name "atom bomb", which I think we're in agreement on. --Fastfission 04:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Formalizing my vote: I feel that it would be best to fold any paragraphs about early atomic weapons or lists of noteworthy historical weapons into nuclear weapon, and leave A-bomb as a redirect. I don't think that a separate A-bomb article serves a useful purpose. The material Tmayes1999 tried to add would be better incorporated into nuclear weapon and nuclear weapon design, if verified as accurate (there was controversy over this). --Christopher Thomas 00:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate Article; the a-bomb, by that name, holds a significant place in human history as it was used to end a war, to usher in the modern age of relative peace, proxy wars, UN, and a shift in focus from bad-ass countries fighting for supremacy, to the distinction of "super-powers", like parents in a stormy marriage sticking it out for the sake of their kids, collaborating to address the problems in the rest of the world. The a-bomb shares a place with the apollo moon lander, the transistor, light bulb, the motorized airplane, as one of the markers of an era. By contrast, "nuclear weapons" represent the commodification of the thing, and while they may be larger, self-launching, and more widely held, the fact that they have not been used for more than a national falic symbol or "saber rattling" limits the sensationalism of their historical significance - deserving of an article, but I think a rather different discussion. Benjamin Gatti 05:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The only difference between the term "atomic bomb" and "nuclear weapon" is that the former is usually used to specify only fission weapons and is anachronistic and technically incorrect. The politics, history, culture, design, etc. is exactly the same as the object described in our article on nuclear weapons. "A-bomb" was and continues to be nothing more than an abbreviated form of the name "atomic bomb". --Fastfission 05:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the difference. One referred to fission bombs. I was in grade school when the term "nuclear bomb" suddenly meant a far more powerful thing. Certainly it was a different animal, and I think the role of the unused nuclear bomb is quite different from the role of the a-bomb. The a-bomb is a valid word (even if you claim technical defect) and it has a unique meaning to many people - such deserves an article, IMO unconfused with what came later.

They have the same history because they are the same things. If you are saying we should have an article on cultural conceptions of nuclear weapons, that's an entirely different subject (we have one on the subject as it is, by the way). If you're saying we should have an article on the history of nuclear weapons, that's an entirely different matter as well (we have one). --Fastfission 17:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Another comment: the a-bomb article being discussed had nothing to do with the history of nuclear weapons when they were still commonly referred to as atomic bombs. It was an article on the design characteristics of fission weapons. See here . In fact, we already have a good article on the history of nuclear weapons. TomTheHand 13:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The a-bomb is still a narrow and well-defined term within the broader context of nuclear weapons. The A-bomb belongs to history. Nuclear weapons belong to science and military. Not unlike "muzzle loader rifles" I should hope they deserve a seperate article to "firearms". Benjamin Gatti 15:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Where, out of curiousity, do you consider history of nuclear weapons to be deficient? It has two whole sections about the "atomic bomb" fission weapons. --Christopher Thomas 17:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Muzzle loader rifles" are a specific type of firearm. An "A-bomb" is not a specific type of nuclear weapon -- it is an antiquidated name for "fission weapon", which itself is a specific type of nuclear weapon. I personally don't think we need a whole article just on fission weapons, but if we did, it would be called by its correct name. In the same sense we have an article on the Teller-Ulam design but not one on "H-bombs". --Fastfission 17:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

When I was in high school I was taught that anything "atomic" dealt with the atom as a whole, i.e. the electron shell mostly, therefore "atomic" physics is properly called chemistry. Whereas nuclear physics deals with the interactions of the atomic nucleus. This is an argument about definitions, and I think we should go with the one that is technically correct. Going with this arguement, an atomic bomb should actually be refering to a conventional bomb that relies on conventional chemical reactions, and a nuclear weapon deals with what we've been talking about here. My thought is that at some point someone explained this to the news anchors and they quitely corrected themselves, but it has just taken time for the "correction" to filter down to the layman. We should do our part to expand truth, and not misunderstanding, which I believe the A-bomb article would be doing.Lcolson 03:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Does this hold true for words like "American"? See technically "Americans" are people from any of the many countries on two "American" continents; however most English-speakers use the word to refer to residents of the United States. So do we go with the word as everyone uses it and means it - or with the more technically correct meaning. I lean in favor of technically correct on that one, but toward popular use on this dilema - and I confess the inconsistency bothers me. any one have a solution? Benjamin Gatti 04:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh for pity's sake Ben stop being a reflexive contrarian ;) That's why Misplaced Pages has redirects. DV8 2XL 05:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest just adding any material you feel is missing to history of nuclear weapons, and making sure that history of nuclear weapons is linked sufficiently prominently from nuclear weapon. The goal is to make it easy for people to find the information they're looking for, while avoiding duplicating information as much as possible, and centralizing it where it makes sense. As long as someone who searches for "atomic bomb", "atom bomb", or "a-bomb" very rapidly finds information on fission weapons and the history of fission weapons, I'd call it mission accomplished. I'll certainly listen to other solution proposals. I can be convinced to change my mind - it's just not easy :). --Christopher Thomas 04:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)