Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Sibi Totique
Joined
·
1,074 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons that mankind has ever created. They have a destructive capability that excites all other weapons. Nuclear weapons creates both enormous amount of thermal energy, a blast wave, initial radiation and radioactive fallout plus and electromagnetic pulse. There are many potential delivery systems like air craft, missiles, bombs, cruise missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Many of the US and Russian weapons are based on strategic submarines. Modern Intercontinental ballistic missiles can I some cases carry more than one nuclear war head, this means that one missile can strike more than one target. This is often referred to as multiply independently targetable reentry vehicles or MIRVs. This means that both Russia and the US can have several hundred of warheads on each strategic submarine. The strategic submarines mean that even if surprise attack against the US or Russia would be successful they could retaliate with hundred, maybe even thousands of nuclear weapons against an attacker. The possibility to destroy an enemy in case of an attack is called MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction.

Radiation
Three types of different radiation is the major problem in Nuclear or radiological scenario: Alfa particles, Beta particles and Gamma rays. Alfa particles have a very low penetration power; they can’t penetrate the skin on the body. But if you inhale Alfa particles into your lungs, drink contaminated water, eat contaminated food or have a cut in your skin you may suffer serious damage from Alfa particles. Beta particles have a slightly higher penetration capability and can cause damage to unprotected skin that resembles the kind of wounds you attract from burn damages. Regular clothing gives some protection but the best protection is some kind of rubber or plastic clothing. Gamma rays have a very high penetration power and the cant really be stopped, the radiation dose can only be reduced by various materials. Materials with a high density like lead or concrete gives the best protection against gamma rays. Neutron radiation is similar to gamma rays with a high penetration.

Radiation sickness
Radiation causes damage to the cells of the body, if the dose of radiation is big enough the person will become sick, even die if the dose is big enough. The chance of contracting cancer and tumors also increases if persons are submitted to radiation. Early symptoms include fatigue, loss of appetite, being tiered and vomiting.

Protection
A Gasmask prevents radioactive Alfa and Beta particles from entering your body trough the lungs. If a nuclear or radiological situation would happen cover up with anything you can find, normal cloths is better than nothing, the get into cover as fast as you can. A basement in a building or fallout shelter is the best option. If no such cover is available, pick the most central location on the ground floors in a building. Use the same routine as with chemical warfare; close all windows, doors and ventilation. Use tape or whatever you can find to make the protection better. Clean your entire body to remove as much radioactive particles as possible.

Find out where your nearest fallout shelter or Bomb shelter is located.

Treatment
There is prophylactic treatment that can be used in advance to exposure. Iodide tablets decreases the amount of radiation that the body accumulates by preventing radiation from being absorbed and then leave the body with the urine. This is only reduces some of the effects, it doesn’t prevent them. The immune system often gets severally damaged as an effect of radiation poisoning, often resulting in fatal infections. In the case of an attack with nuclear weapons many surviving people will suffer burn damages from thermal radiation as well as radiation burns, this will make people even more vulnerable to infection. Antibiotics are often given after exposure to prevent infections. Keep all wounds clean and covered.

Dirty bombs
There is a possibility that radiological materials could be spread by being attached to a conventional bomb to cause even more damage to people. If highly radioactive material like depleted fuel from a nuclear power plant a major problem for those how attempt to construct the bomb would actually surviving the making if the bomb. I have been unable to find any case where a “dirty bomb” has been used.

High Attitude Electro Magnetic Pulse
A nuclear explosion that takes place above 30000m creates a powerful electromagnetic pulse. A explosion that triggered high enough could take out most of the electronic systems and communication system in almost the entire continental United States or the European Union. An electromagnetic pulse has no direct effect on people. William R. Forchten describes a scenario like this in he’s fictional book “One Second After”.

Events with nuclear weapons and radiological materials
1942 The Manhattan Project gets started with the objective of creating nuclear weapons. In July 1945 the first nuclear bomb called “Trinity” was tested in New Mexiko.

1945 The Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked with nuclear weapons. The weapons used was relatively weak in comparison to the weapons of today (15 and 20 kilotons), but still about 200.000 died of the total population that was less than 500.000. This is the only cases where nuclear weapons been used against an enemy in history.

1952 The US tests the first hydrogen bomb in history named “Mike”, the bomb had an explosive force about 10,5 Megatons. The power of the weapon completely

1961 The Soviet Union tested the most powerful nuclear weapon in history: Tsar Bomba. The nuclear weapon had an explosive force about 60 megatons, 3 megatons is equal to all explosives used in the entire Second World War. 1 Megaton equals 1000 kilotons of explosive force. 1 kiloton equals 1000 tons of TNT. So Hiroshima equaled: 15.000 tons, Tsar Bomba 60.000.000 tons of TNT.

1962 The Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons and missiles on Cuba. An armed confrontation that could have lead to a nuclear war was very close but could be diverted. This incident is often referred to as The Cuban Missile Crisis. I strongly recommend the book “Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis” by Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow that analysis the crisis from three different perspectives. There is also a movie about the event called “Thirteen days”.

1967 The US reaches its peak in number of nuclear warheads at around 32.500 warheads.

1979 The Three Mile Island accident was the most serious incident in American history until today. There was conflicting information about the accident the first days, there was some radioactive fallout but no one died as direct result. However the fallout may have caused some fatalities from cancer.

1981 Israeli aircraft bombs the Osiraq research reactor in Iraq.

1986 Mordechai Vanunu reveals evidence of Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the British press. He was kidnapped in Rome by Israel intelligence agents and brought back to Israel where he was tried for espionage and treason. He was imprisoned for 18 years and released in 2004. Israel has never gone public with their possession of nuclear weapons.

1986 The Soviet Union reaches its peak with about 45.000 nuclear warheads.

1986 there was a meltdown at the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl. 56 died as direct result and hundreds of thousands was exposed to radiation. How many of these that have or will die as a result of cancer is a debated question. Many other countries also got affected by radioactive fallout. This is the worst accident at nuclear power plants until this day.

Sometime during the end of the 1980:s South Africa destroyed all its nuclear weapons. South Africa is the only nuclear power that completely removed their nuclear weapons, this is made public 1991.

1999 there was an incident at the Tokaimura nuclear waste storage facility in Japan. It caused radioactive leakage that killed two of the employees.

2006 North Korea makes its first nuclear weapon test. Most information indicates that this was a test with a weapon of relatively weak warhead.

In 2006 the Russian journalist Alexander Litvinenko dies after he’s been poisoned with the radioactive material polonium.

Russia has continued to develop missile systems, one of the current projects Bulava are designed to penetrate missile defense systems. The Bulava missiles is intended to be carried by a new Russian class of submarines, the Borei class is under development.

Today’s threat
Existing nuclear powers: The United States and Russia are the most powerful nuclear powers in the world, they have still have around 10.000 warheads per country. France, The United Kingdom, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea also have nuclear weapons but not nearly as many as the US and Russia. South Africa used to have nuclear weapons but have chosen to disarm their weapons.

There is a possibility that terrorist could get there hand on a nuclear weapon but it would be very hard for a terrorist group to build a weapon from scratch. It’s my belief that the weapon would have to be either supplied by a state or stolen from a state. The security measures surrounding nuclear weapons would make that highly unlikely, but not impossible. The bombs have to be activated, if this is done wrong the modern weapons will seize to function and the process to reset them is complicated, this can often only be done at the installation where they were built. And if a weapons would be stolen the country would chase the people how had stolen it with all resources of a modern state.

If a country would supply a nuclear weapon to terrorist group there is a very high risk that the weapon would be traced back to country that supplied it and the country would most likely face massive retaliation. A terrorist attack with a high attitude EMP is even more unlikely because of need for an advanced missile as well as a nuclear war head. The use of nuclear weapons is in my opinion a very low probability scenario but the most disastrous scenario that could happen.

US Defensive Systems
The US withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty 2002 and has some operational systems that can intercept ballistic missiles and some that are under development. The sea based Aegis system is designed to shoot down air craft and incoming ship to ship missiles and is being developed further for this purpose. There is also the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 System that uses missiles. The THAAD system is designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles as they re-enter earths atmosphere, the entire system is mobile and be moved by transport planes. MEADS is also an ongoing project involving US, Germany and Italy. The Airborne Laser (ABL) is a project to shot down missiles with a laser mounted in aircraft, this system is under development. The ABL system and THAAD system has been covered on the show “Future Weapons” on the Discovery channel. How effective ballistic defense systems would really be is hard to say.

There is also stationary equipment to detect radioactive particles and radiation at US port, airports, many major cities and at important installations. So even if a non state actor could get their hands on nuclear weapons it would be hard to smuggle it into the US and there is a real chance it could be intercepted before reaching its target. In addition to this almost every modern country has a series of automatic stationary systems that can detect radioactive fallout in an early stage. This is one of the lessons learned from Chernobyl.
 

·
Hope is not a method
Joined
·
527 Posts
Excellent thread, good information.

Some additions recommended:

Neutron radiation is almost always associated with gamma decay processes but is harder to detect due to its interaction method (gamma rays deposit energy directly, converting it to electron flow for detection, neutron radiation has to be done using indirect measures because its interaction is electrically neutral). So if you have a gamma detector, assume you have neutron. To protect from neutron use any material that has a high hydrogen content. Water is the easiest to procure and attenuates it quiet well. Due to the gamma radiation requiring a higher density of a material to attenuate, the above mentioned materials like lead, boron and if you have lots of gold laying around they work well. Steel and iron also work well but you can use simple dirt, you just need several feet thick of it (20 or more feet!) to protect yourself from gamma radiation.

The simple concept of Time, Distance and Shielding works well in a fall out scenario. Time is the exposure accumulated in a given time or better known as a dose. The dose varies with the activity (actual disintegrations or nuclear reactions inside the material that creates the emitted particles). So a source with a 50 Curie source (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie) is throwing off allot of radiation, possibly all the types given the material and decay chains involved. That source is governed by the 1 over R squared law, where for every foot distance away you are, the divergence of the rays increases by a squared factor.

Other ways to 'flush' radiation from your body: BEER. I'm not kidding, well actually any type of drink that makes you urinate frequently will assist the tritium particles out, I just chose beer :) Vanilla ice cream to assist flushing cesium (I'm not 100% sure on this one, vanilla does flush some isotope, I just can't remember). Also a commercial product called Prussian Blue can be prescribed by a doctor to assist flushing certain radioactive particles from the body. What and how it does it is a trade secret for the company and the military has agreed not to divulge their secret.

As for the threat a Dirty Bomb, the blast of the conventional explosives is the most dangerous aspect of the device. The ensuing panic it would create is probably the main reason a terrorist would actually use it. As for the actual physical damage, very limited.

Excellent information as always.
 

·
off-grid organic farmer
Joined
·
24,543 Posts
From 1945 until 1992 the US averaged 13 nuclear detonations each year, conducted within the continental US.

The US performed at least 1,054 tests [including 331 atmospheric tests] at various locations to include: Nevada, Marshall Islands, Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico.

My step-father was involved in conducting one nuc test in 1946, and I was involved with a series of nuc tests during my AD career.
 

·
Hope is not a method
Joined
·
527 Posts
Sorry no.

Was he in a test overseas? Or high altitude or the US? Or one of the sea-labs? or a sub-launched-orbital-tests?
The HEMP test that took out Hawaii, he did some of the after effects modeling. I think he was Navy, hard to tell because he makes fun of the Air Force guys here at Air Force Institute of Technology. He doesn't talk much about his service career, mainly his academic career afterwords.
 

·
off-grid organic farmer
Joined
·
24,543 Posts
We did a lot of nuc 'tests'. Many within the US.

I find it amazing that so many nucs were blown-up and yet nobody cares. Or at least there is a distorted perception.

We can blow-up 100 nucs right here, all the tests are done, and data gets collected; but nobody dies from it.

And yet at the same time; people freak out big time over the idea of one nuc going off.

Last year I saw where someone 'tested' a nuc in the South Atlantic, but no nation has made any claims that it was theirs.

So somebody is making and testing nucs and not telling the press about it.
 

·
wanderer
Joined
·
281 Posts
Thanks, good info. Some addition.

Protection:
I think its matter to say, that going out from contamination immediately - failure. In first hours of tragedy radiation is great, but it decreases very rapidly. Optimal strategy to wait in shelter some hours or day and go out after radiation level stops falling. In goin out time you should be nearer to construction or go in car. As we study on safety lesson in school, huge objects absorb phone.
The bandage of cloth can be used instead the gasmask, the main think - not to breathe dust.

Treatment:
Validity of START ends in this year. In this circumstances RF turn on system "The Perimetr" (aka "The Death Hand" in NATO classification). This is USSR system of automated nuclear response to massive attack, in case of communication destruction or commandership death. This system feell the status in many ground points and radars of territory and prepere for response in case message of earthquake, approaching of missiles and etc, but commandership have some time to stop response. Theoretically, false triggering of the system is extremely unlikely. But in case of global cataclism, for instance meteor falling, and if communications lost, tragedy can be added by nuclear war.

Events:
1954 - Made first in World nuclear station in USSR in Obninsk (Kaluga region). I think this important date.

It is too early to talk about the mace. At the moment this missile has not successful tests.
 

·
Conformist
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Thanks, good info. Some addition.

Protection:
I think its matter to say, that going out from contamination immediately - failure. In first hours of tragedy radiation is great, but it decreases very rapidly. Optimal strategy to wait in shelter some hours or day and go out after radiation level stops falling. In goin out time you should be nearer to construction or go in car. As we study on safety lesson in school, huge objects absorb phone.
The bandage of cloth can be used instead the gasmask, the main think - not to breathe dust.

Treatment:
Validity of START ends in this year. In this circumstances RF turn on system "The Perimetr" (aka "The Death Hand" in NATO classification). This is USSR system of automated nuclear response to massive attack, in case of communication destruction or commandership death. This system feell the status in many ground points and radars of territory and prepere for response in case message of earthquake, approaching of missiles and etc, but commandership have some time to stop response. Theoretically, false triggering of the system is extremely unlikely. But in case of global cataclism, for instance meteor falling, and if communications lost, tragedy can be added by nuclear war.

Events:
1954 - Made first in World nuclear station in USSR in Obninsk (Kaluga region). I think this important date.

It is too early to talk about the mace. At the moment this missile has not successful tests.
One danger many overlook is the left over neutrons, while there are comparatively few, if your anywhere near the blast site, getting hit by them is very, very harmful.

But luckily, due to quantum mechanics, a neutron has a decay rate of around 15 minutes, (ps, this means a neutron that is not bound to an atom, just free floating out there, not a neutron in an atom), so id wait 20 minutes in whatever hole/shelter you can before going out there.

A neutron usually decays into electrons and protons.
 

·
Conformist
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Im just going to throw this out there, there really has been no physical hard core evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons other than what one physicist said, heck, even UN nuke inspectors visited Israel and found nothing
 

·
wanderer
Joined
·
281 Posts
One danger many overlook is the left over neutrons, while there are comparatively few, if your anywhere near the blast site, getting hit by them is very, very harmful.

But luckily, due to quantum mechanics, a neutron has a decay rate of around 15 minutes, (ps, this means a neutron that is not bound to an atom, just free floating out there, not a neutron in an atom), so id wait 20 minutes in whatever hole/shelter you can before going out there.

A neutron usually decays into electrons and protons.
If I understood you, we are talking about different things. I'm talking about reducing the radiation background in the early hours. This is due to the fact that the substance with the highest radiation have very short half-life.
 

·
Hope is not a method
Joined
·
527 Posts
The neutron radiation is very short lived, I'm talking within the burst/fireball time frame. As for any air-inelastic and ground collision created neutrons, they are within the gamma pulse region of the blast where its the least of your worries (your being incinerated in microseconds).

Neutron activation (where the neutron collides and creates an unstable isotope) is also short lived and centered around ground zero for maybe only a couple of hundred meters (depending on weapon yield).

Given all the decay chains where a neutron is present, 99.9% of the time there will also be a gamma with associated energy (at least on the same magnitude). Since neutrons are more difficult to detect (detector efficiency wise), do your dose rates off the gamma readings and you'll have a far assessment of your dose rate.

For a good reference see Krane - Nuclear Physics, it has all the decay schemes and isotopes associated with nuclear reactions. For a radioactive decay process from fallout of a weapon, see Eisenbud/Gessel - Radioactivity in the Environment.

Its not that neutron radiation is not as dangerous (actually it is more damaging on an energy absorption metric than any other radiation), its just not as abundant in radioactive fallout from a nuclear weapon and is the least of your worries given the more abundant gamma emitters, needless to say the alpha and beta emitters you may be ingesting.

Sheltering in place is only an option if you can't get out of the cloud path in time, and you better have plenty of shielding and distance between you and the structure. A filter system is a must in the shelter-in option.

Given Singular1ty's extensive knowledge of quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and nuclear weapons, he has painted another misrepresentation view of the material (He's on my ignore list but I do correct inaccurate information from a reply post). A neutron does not have a simple decay rate of 15 minutes (maybe one isotope out of hundreds might). The decay rates are dependent on the atomic structure, so if its a single neutron 'just lying around' then it has very little energy and won't hurt. If it has energy (aka its moving with a velocity), it will eventually collide or interact with another atomic structure. Either neutron capture, energy deposition or atomic break-up of the target atom. All this is in the above text books.
 

·
Conformist
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Given Singular1ty's extensive knowledge of quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and nuclear weapons, he has painted another misrepresentation view of the material (He's on my ignore list but I do correct inaccurate information from a reply post). A neutron does not have a simple decay rate of 15 minutes (maybe one isotope out of hundreds might). The decay rates are dependent on the atomic structure, so if its a single neutron 'just lying around' then it has very little energy and won't hurt. If it has energy (aka its moving with a velocity), it will eventually collide or interact with another atomic structure. Either neutron capture, energy deposition or atomic break-up of the target atom. All this is in the above text books.
While bound neutrons in stable nuclei are stable, free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (885.7 ± 0.8 s).[2] Free neutrons are produced in nuclear fission and fusion
This came from wikipedia, and I specifically stated Iso that I was referring to unbound neutrons and not neutrons contained inside of an atom...

Someone please quote this and include the wikipedia thing please so Iso gets it, thank you.

Because the neutron consists of three quarks, the only possible decay mode without a change of baryon number requires the flavour changing of one of the quarks via the weak nuclear force. The neutron consists of two down quarks with charge −1/3 and one up quark with charge +2/3, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can be achieved by the emission of a W boson. By this means the neutron decays into a proton (which contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron antineutrino (antineutrino).

Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 885.7±0.8 s (about 14 minutes, 46 seconds); the half-life for this process is 613.9±0.8 s (about 10 minutes, 14 seconds)[2]. Free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an antineutrino to become a proton:[4]

n0 → p+ + e− + νe
This decay mode, known as beta decay, can also transform the character of neutrons within unstable nuclei.

Bound inside a nucleus, protons can also transform via inverse beta decay into neutrons. In this case, the transformation occurs by emission of a positron (antielectron) and a neutrino (instead of an antineutrino):

p+ → n0 + e+ + νe
The transformation of a proton to a neutron inside of a nucleus is also possible through electron capture:

p+ + e− → n0 + νe
Next time quote these textbooks.

P.S. the amount of time it take an ICBM to go from point "a" to point "b" is also posted on wikipedia.
 

·
Hope is not a method
Joined
·
527 Posts
First off, can we call a cease fire? I apologies for the derogatory remarks, I get angry at information not stated accurately or with caveats to the situation. Case in point below:

This came from wikipedia, and I specifically stated Iso that I was referring to unbound neutrons and not neutrons contained inside of an atom...


While bound neutrons in stable nuclei are stable, free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (885.7 ± 0.8 s).[2] Free neutrons are produced in nuclear fission and fusion
That 'free' neutron is traveling extremely fast with a huge cross section and it came from a nucleus from fission of fusion. The only place it has that life span is in a vacuum chamber at a particle accelerator (the old linear ones especially) so you will not find one outside at a nuclear detonation site. That cross section equates to a life span (this is the attenuation of the neutron by impact into another atom/molecule), which is nano- to micro- seconds. So the caveat you should have used is the neutron life span if it did not attenuate.

Next time quote these textbooks.
The below reference are from wikipedia, I have the bolded ones (had to read them and take tests in a graduate level course and pass with B or better, I got an A) and quoted from them.
References

1. ^ a b 1935 Nobel Prize in Physics
2. ^ a b c d Particle Data Group's Review of Particle Physics 2006
3. ^ Chadwick, James (1932). "Possible Existence of a Neutron". Nature 129: 312. doi:10.1038/129312a0.
4. ^ Particle Data Group Summary Data Table on Baryons
5. ^ "Pear-shaped particles probe big-bang mystery". University of Sussex. 2006-02-20. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media537.shtml. Retrieved 2009-12-14.
6. ^ Kumakhov, M. A.; Sharov, V. A. (1992). "A neutron lens". Nature 357: 390–391. doi:10.1038/357390a0.
7. ^ Physorg.com, "New Way of 'Seeing': A 'Neutron Microscope'"
8. ^ NASA.gov: "NASA Develops a Nugget to Search for Life in Space"
9. ^ http://www.physicamedica.com/VOLXVII_S1/20-CLOWDSLEY%20et%20alii.pdf

[edit] Further reading

* Knoll, G. F. (2000) Radiation Detection and Measurement
* Krane, K. S. (1998) Introductory Nuclear Physics

* Squires, G. L. (1997) Introduction to the Theory of Thermal Neutron Scattering
* Dewey, M. S., Gilliam, D. M., Nico, J. S., Snow, M. S., Wietfeldt, F. E. NIST Neutron Lifetime Experiment


The bolded books ARE the books I have taken classes with, I have quoted from then in the last post and this one. Wikipedia is not exact, it makes mistakes or the information is misleading because there is allot more to it.

P.S. the amount of time it take an ICBM to go from point "a" to point "b" is also posted on wikipedia.
The leadership of a country under attack by ICBMs would probably have at most thirty minutes—the time it takes an ICBM to reach its target—to make a launch decision. In reality, many factors would reduce the amount of time available.
This is the full quote, again misleading. The LEADERSHIP would have this time, on an optimal day. This is based on sats and ballistic radar warning stations STRATEGICALLY located around the world. They are huge (radar stations) and the sats are positioned in specific orbits to cover certain strategic areas. These sats do not cover the coast of the US where the last thread talked about a rogue missile/nuke launched from a container ship. The early warning systems are not in place to detect these type of attacks, even ones launched 300,000 feet into the air. Given the accent speed of solid propulsion rockets (which don't need oxygen, once lit it can't be stopped - the main reason NASA only uses them for initial assist) it would take less than 30 minutes to reach altitude.

If we were arguing over two separate points, then I apologize again. But it sounded like generalities without caveats to explain the statements.
 

·
Conformist
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
First off, can we call a cease fire? I apologies for the derogatory remarks, I get angry at information not stated accurately or with caveats to the situation. Case in point below:



That 'free' neutron is traveling extremely fast with a huge cross section and it came from a nucleus from fission of fusion. The only place it has that life span is in a vacuum chamber at a particle accelerator (the old linear ones especially) so you will not find one outside at a nuclear detonation site. That cross section equates to a life span (this is the attenuation of the neutron by impact into another atom/molecule), which is nano- to micro- seconds. So the caveat you should have used is the neutron life span if it did not attenuate.



The below reference are from wikipedia, I have the bolded ones (had to read them and take tests in a graduate level course and pass with B or better, I got an A) and quoted from them.
References

1. ^ a b 1935 Nobel Prize in Physics
2. ^ a b c d Particle Data Group's Review of Particle Physics 2006
3. ^ Chadwick, James (1932). "Possible Existence of a Neutron". Nature 129: 312. doi:10.1038/129312a0.
4. ^ Particle Data Group Summary Data Table on Baryons
5. ^ "Pear-shaped particles probe big-bang mystery". University of Sussex. 2006-02-20. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/media/media537.shtml. Retrieved 2009-12-14.
6. ^ Kumakhov, M. A.; Sharov, V. A. (1992). "A neutron lens". Nature 357: 390–391. doi:10.1038/357390a0.
7. ^ Physorg.com, "New Way of 'Seeing': A 'Neutron Microscope'"
8. ^ NASA.gov: "NASA Develops a Nugget to Search for Life in Space"
9. ^ http://www.physicamedica.com/VOLXVII_S1/20-CLOWDSLEY%20et%20alii.pdf

[edit] Further reading

* Knoll, G. F. (2000) Radiation Detection and Measurement
* Krane, K. S. (1998) Introductory Nuclear Physics

* Squires, G. L. (1997) Introduction to the Theory of Thermal Neutron Scattering
* Dewey, M. S., Gilliam, D. M., Nico, J. S., Snow, M. S., Wietfeldt, F. E. NIST Neutron Lifetime Experiment


The bolded books ARE the books I have taken classes with, I have quoted from then in the last post and this one. Wikipedia is not exact, it makes mistakes or the information is misleading because there is allot more to it.





This is the full quote, again misleading. The LEADERSHIP would have this time, on an optimal day. This is based on sats and ballistic radar warning stations STRATEGICALLY located around the world. They are huge (radar stations) and the sats are positioned in specific orbits to cover certain strategic areas. These sats do not cover the coast of the US where the last thread talked about a rogue missile/nuke launched from a container ship. The early warning systems are not in place to detect these type of attacks, even ones launched 300,000 feet into the air. Given the accent speed of solid propulsion rockets (which don't need oxygen, once lit it can't be stopped - the main reason NASA only uses them for initial assist) it would take less than 30 minutes to reach altitude.

If we were arguing over two separate points, then I apologize again. But it sounded like generalities without caveats to explain the statements.
okay, but I was also being an ******* (rhymes with pothole), I shoudlnt have brought that back up from an unrelated thread. I apologize.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top