Thursday, June 5, 2014

Kwanstainia Determined To Lose WW3

Planning to win a nuclear war with a first strike in 1963

American ABM technology simply doesn't work. Russia has mobile launchers for the majority of its missiles now. The U.S. still runs a static operation. Russia will know exactly where to disable all of the 'Stains weapons, but the Kwa can't pinpoint more than 10% of the Russia missile force at any one time. Russia's submarines have a clear advantage in baffling attempts to locate them. Russia's air fighters have a 9-to-1 kill ratio against the Kwa's aging fleet of 1970's jets in most objective tests.

Rods from God and orbital platforms the U.S. is frantically working to upgrade will almost certainly pose a major threat to the civilian population of Russia but in terms of military strategy there is very little to gain by killing civilians. The Russian nuclear force is extremely mobile, adaptable and nearly impossible to plan to destroy with conventional nuclear weapons. This makes it far more likely that the U.S. will turn to cobalt-salted weapons to sterilize whole regions and employ ramjet horror weapons previously discussed on Vault-Co, consisting of spraying a swath of plutonium designed to wipe out entire map grids with sheer radioactive overkill. This in turn suggests the Russians will retaliate with dirty "unthinkable" weapons of their own final reserve including the Dead Hand system and the Dr. Strangelovian Cobalt-60 "Tsar Bomba" they have always claimed to have. We would see the red mercury nuclear cluster bombs deployed that the U.S. has claimed don't exist for decades and neutron-based weapons used against civilians in metropolitan areas.

The 'Stain is going to get its a** kicked even if China doesn't jump in to help and it almost certainly will.

As the WOPR said in War Games, the only way for the Kwa to win is not to play. The madmen over there just don't know the odds.


samhuih said...

You've talked about cobalt bombs a few times here's a quote on the effectiveness of them from this page,

Actually, the amount of residual nuclear radiation energy given off by cobalt-60 or anything else that simply captures neutrons is always much less than that given off by the fission products produced by using the same number of neutrons for fission: cobalt-60 only emits two gamma rays, 1.17 MeV and 1.33 MeV (a total of 2.5 MeV of energy), given off in decay per atom, with a 50% decay probability within 5.3 years (the "half-life"). Using the same single neutron to cause fission releases 200 MeV, including 7 MeV of delayed fission product gamma rays. Therefore, you can get more explosive effects plus more residual radiation using a uranium-238 jacket, than you can using cobalt. The low specific activity of cobalt in fallout due to the 5.3 years half-life means it is not a hazard over the short time needed to decontaminate surfaces (by hose pipe flushing or street vacuum cleaning vehicles; radioactivity in drains underground is well shielded from people).

If there is a cobalt or other "salting" jacket, you get a few MeV of radiation energy per neutron captured by cobalt-59, creating cobalt-60; but if the jacket is U-238 you get 200 MeV of prompt blast, heat and cratering energy as well as more residual radiation energy than you would get from using the same neutron to change cobalt-59 into cobalt-60. Therefore, you lose effects including residual radiation energy by using a cobalt jacket instead of a U-238 (natural uranium) jacket to the bomb's fusion stage, and you don't gain anything by having less radiation energy given off very slowly, spread over many years by cobalt-60, because the lower dose rate you get from spreading out a fixed amount of energy as radiation exposure over long times rather than having it concentrated into a shorter time interval (higher dose rate). Cobalt-60 is thus less effective than a U-238 jacket on a thermonuclear bomb because it:

(1) permits decontamination (you sweep or flush it away, where it doesn't get naturally flushed down the drain by rain or washed/plowed deeply into the soil, which shields the radiation) before getting a significant dose, and

(2) spreading out the same few MeV per neutron capture over many years with cobalt-60 allows biological repair to proceed while the dose is accumulated: low level doses have been observed in properly controlled studies to not have the harmful short or long effects which can be extrapolated linearly from large doses. The whole basis of Kubrick's film is a lie, exaggerating the threat and promoting quack civil defense countermeasures. Fallout decontamination was intensively studied in the 1956 Operation Redwing nuclear test series at Bikini and Eniwetok Atolls, which despite being the ground zero locale for numerous multimegaton high-fission yield nuclear tests, were successfully decontaminated:..."

Another good link on the effect of nuclear weapons,

Basically you can be protected from nuclear weapons. In test of tactical nuclear weapons troops were protected from 40PSI over pressure from open trench ditches. The blast went over the ditch. 40 PSI is very high. I believe 5 PSI is supposed to completely destroy a standard frame built house. Duck and cover is actually effective. Of course if you can avoid nuclear war you odds of living are much higher.

Texas Arcane said...


This site is all about contradicting the widespread superstition that nuclear wars are unsurvivable.

It is not that cobalt would wipe out all life on earth. That is a colossal exaggeration. Cobalt would wipe out nations without a civil defence program.

We've blogged many times about the capacity of the natural environment to do considerable decontamination with no human interventions at all, assuming that civilians are sheltered while the rain and weathering washes the majority of contamination away with topsoils.

As for assuming cobalt salted weapons pose no serious threat, your own figures on the half-life clearly demonstrate the need for shelter.

You also got your figures from an airburst. The whole point of using dirty salted weapons is to detonate them on the ground and turn tons of ground zero mass into radioactive vapour which when it drifts down out of the troposphere will be incredibly radioactive initially. My EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS here suggests the first six months after use of cobalt weapons would be uninhabitable aboveground for longer than a few minutes at a time.

Whereas you are correct to point out the vastly exaggerated capacity of these weapons it is an error in the other direction to depict them as posing a threat that does not require hardened below ground shelter to survive. Cobalt will never require a two week stay in the basement, it is quite a bit more serious than that.

Within 25 miles of a ground burst salted weapon with Cobalt-60, radiation levels could be lethal in as little as 30 minutes up to a year downwind.

Luke said...

Tex, you said "We've blogged..." but I only ever see posts under the one name Texas Arcane. Are their multiple writers posting at Vault-Co? Or are you the sole blogger for a group of thinkers?

samhuih said...

I'm not sure how to "exactly" quantify the radiation from a cobalt bomb but I would reason the effects like this. The actual physical amount of cobalt "on" the bomb would be the maximum amount of radioactive cobalt made in the explosion. How much can be wrapped around a bomb? Here's a story where a truck carrying 40 grams (1.4 ounces)was stolen in Mexico.

This means that properly shielded this amount can be carried around on a truck. So it's not magic it can be reliably shielded against. The larger the amount of cobalt on the weapon the less blast and the greater effort to get the bomb to the target.
This wiki page on cobalt bombs

makes out like they are the end of the world but look at this first sentence describing the effects.

"...Assume a cobalt bomb deposits intense fallout causing a dose rate of 10 sieverts (Sv) per hour..."

Ah Ha! "Assume...". Remember you can only get this high level of persistent radiation from the physical cobalt packaged with the bomb.
As for the ground burst portion of the radiation this page,

says,"...Militarily useful radiological weapons would use local (as opposed to world-wide) contamination, and high initial intensities for rapid effects. Prolonged contamination is also undesirable. In this light Zn-64 is possibly better suited to military applications than cobalt, but probably inferior to tantalum or gold. As noted above ordinary "dirty" fusion-fission bombs have very high initial radiation intensities and must also be considered radiological weapons..."

When they say local I read it as ground burst material. This is highly radioactive but decays rapidly. So the actual cobalt contaminated area would be smaller and confined to the immediate downwind path. If spread out it's intensity would go down as noted from the first page I linked. Not that any of this is good.
So if you're directly in the downwind path of a cobalt bomb you would have to move.

I don't see any State attacking the USA with nuclear weapons. The counter attack would be a bitch. I wouldn't rule out Israel doing so and claiming "terrorist" did it. They wouldn't get away with it. The various defense and security forces in the US are too chicken to call Israel on 9/11, which Israel did, because of the major political fall out from doing so but nukes would be too much. Either the politicians would do something or they would be hanging from light post.

We support Ukraine and condemn war. Push Russian government to act against war. Be brave, vocal and show your support to Ukraine. Follow the latest news HERE