Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Hi y'all. Can anyone explain me the difference between a regular nuclear bomb and a so-called dirty nuke? Or direct me to a link or something.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Dirty and clean nuclear devices.
SwordFish_13
Active member
Hi,
The term dirty bomb is most often used to refer to a Radiological Dispersal Device ................ It combines the radioactive material with conventional explosives .
Conventional Explosives are used to Dispence the Radioactive material over a large area ............... In A Conventional Nuclear Bomb the Initial Explosen would have had more Immidiate leathel affect.
A Dirty Bomb is not a Nuke or Nuclear Bomb .
This is How www.answers.com Defines it
This is How Nukepills.com Definees it
Peace
-=SF_13=-
The term dirty bomb is most often used to refer to a Radiological Dispersal Device ................ It combines the radioactive material with conventional explosives .
Conventional Explosives are used to Dispence the Radioactive material over a large area ............... In A Conventional Nuclear Bomb the Initial Explosen would have had more Immidiate leathel affect.
A Dirty Bomb is not a Nuke or Nuclear Bomb .
This is How www.answers.com Defines it
This is How Nukepills.com Definees it
Peace
-=SF_13=-
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Thank you very much, Sword_Fish. 8)
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Damien435 said:
Ozirak? I see.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Nuclear bombs vary in how "clean" they are as well. That is to say, how much fallout they generate. For instance, Russian nukes are much "dirtier" than US nukes as they generate a significantly larger amount of fallout.
But the term "dirty bomb" does apply to using radioactive dust/particulate, etc. to radiate a given area. The effect of fallout without the detonation of a nuke.
But the term "dirty bomb" does apply to using radioactive dust/particulate, etc. to radiate a given area. The effect of fallout without the detonation of a nuke.
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Charge 7 said:
So I guess the dirtier the bomb the less advanced its tech right?
You were asking about dirty nuclear bombs, not dirty bombs which are entirely different. Dirty bombs combine traditional explosives with radioactive material but are not nuclear bombs as there is no fission or fusion envolved.
Say you want to create a 15-20 kiloton bomb, you can do this 3 ways. One is to build a fission bomb like the ones used on Japan in 1945, Fatman used 6kg of Plutonium and 260kg of Uranium, Little boy used 60kg of uranium. These are dirty bombs in that there is a lot of fallout from the explosion. Another way is to make a salted bomb, this is a fission bomb with a fusion shell desgned to produce the neutrons to ignite a outer uranium layer, or tamper. this also makes for a dirty bomb thanks to the large use of uranium. The third way is to use the smallest ammount of uranium or plutonium possible and use it as the igniter for a fusion outer shell. I think the smallest fission yield able to be used is about 0.3 kilotons, this is enough to fuse the lithium outer shell creating most of the yield, the fission core is the sparkplug. Around 2 kg of plutonium or about 6 kg of uranium is sufficient for this. This is referred to as a clean bomb as there is little fallout compared to the other types. By adding additional fusion stages the yield can be greatly increased without using more dirty trigger material. The w-80 warhead has yields from 0.3 kiloton using just the sparkplug, to 170 kt with the outer fusion stages.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Nuclear-weapon-design
The term has also been used historically to refer to certain types of nuclear weapons. Due to the inefficiency of early nuclear weapons (such as "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"), 2% or less of the nuclear material would be consumed during the explosion. Thus, they tended to disperse large amounts of unused fissile material in the form of nuclear fallout. During the 1950s, there was considerable debate over whether "clean" bombs could be produced, and these were often contrasted with "dirty" bombs. "Clean" bombs were often a stated goal, and scientists and administrators said that high-efficiency nuclear weapon design could create explosions which generated almost all of their energy in the form of nuclear fusion, which does not create harmful fission products. But the Castle Bravo accident of in 1954, in which a thermonuclear weapon produced a large amount of fallout which was dispersed among many human populations, suggested that this was not what was actually being used in modern thermonuclear weapons, which derive around half of their yield from a final fission stage. While some proposed producing "clean" weapons, other theorists note that one could make a nuclear weapon intentionally "dirty" by "salting" it with a material (most commonly a type of cobalt) which would generate large amounts of long-lasting fallout when irradiated by the weapon core. In the post-Cold War age, this usage of the term has largely fallen out of use. The mushroom cloud of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan, 1945, rose some 18 km (11 mi) above the epicenter. ... A post-war Fat Man model. ... Little Boy bomb casing Little Boy was the codename given to the nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on Monday, August 6, 1945. ... This article or section should be merged with Fissile Fissile material is composed of atoms that can undergo nuclear fission and sustain a fission chain reaction. ... Fallout is the residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion and is named from the fact that it falls out of the atmosphere in to which it is spread during the explosion. ... The first nuclear weapons, though large, cumbersome and inefficient, provided the basic design building blocks of all future weapons. ... The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction is considered the most promising for producing fusion power. ... Fission products are the residues of fission processes. ... Castle Bravo was the first test of a Teller_Ulam configuration thermonuclear dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated at the Bikini Atoll on February 28, 1954. ...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dirty-bomb
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/weapons/nuclear_bomb_chart.htm
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html
Say you want to create a 15-20 kiloton bomb, you can do this 3 ways. One is to build a fission bomb like the ones used on Japan in 1945, Fatman used 6kg of Plutonium and 260kg of Uranium, Little boy used 60kg of uranium. These are dirty bombs in that there is a lot of fallout from the explosion. Another way is to make a salted bomb, this is a fission bomb with a fusion shell desgned to produce the neutrons to ignite a outer uranium layer, or tamper. this also makes for a dirty bomb thanks to the large use of uranium. The third way is to use the smallest ammount of uranium or plutonium possible and use it as the igniter for a fusion outer shell. I think the smallest fission yield able to be used is about 0.3 kilotons, this is enough to fuse the lithium outer shell creating most of the yield, the fission core is the sparkplug. Around 2 kg of plutonium or about 6 kg of uranium is sufficient for this. This is referred to as a clean bomb as there is little fallout compared to the other types. By adding additional fusion stages the yield can be greatly increased without using more dirty trigger material. The w-80 warhead has yields from 0.3 kiloton using just the sparkplug, to 170 kt with the outer fusion stages.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Nuclear-weapon-design
The term has also been used historically to refer to certain types of nuclear weapons. Due to the inefficiency of early nuclear weapons (such as "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"), 2% or less of the nuclear material would be consumed during the explosion. Thus, they tended to disperse large amounts of unused fissile material in the form of nuclear fallout. During the 1950s, there was considerable debate over whether "clean" bombs could be produced, and these were often contrasted with "dirty" bombs. "Clean" bombs were often a stated goal, and scientists and administrators said that high-efficiency nuclear weapon design could create explosions which generated almost all of their energy in the form of nuclear fusion, which does not create harmful fission products. But the Castle Bravo accident of in 1954, in which a thermonuclear weapon produced a large amount of fallout which was dispersed among many human populations, suggested that this was not what was actually being used in modern thermonuclear weapons, which derive around half of their yield from a final fission stage. While some proposed producing "clean" weapons, other theorists note that one could make a nuclear weapon intentionally "dirty" by "salting" it with a material (most commonly a type of cobalt) which would generate large amounts of long-lasting fallout when irradiated by the weapon core. In the post-Cold War age, this usage of the term has largely fallen out of use. The mushroom cloud of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan, 1945, rose some 18 km (11 mi) above the epicenter. ... A post-war Fat Man model. ... Little Boy bomb casing Little Boy was the codename given to the nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on Monday, August 6, 1945. ... This article or section should be merged with Fissile Fissile material is composed of atoms that can undergo nuclear fission and sustain a fission chain reaction. ... Fallout is the residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion and is named from the fact that it falls out of the atmosphere in to which it is spread during the explosion. ... The first nuclear weapons, though large, cumbersome and inefficient, provided the basic design building blocks of all future weapons. ... The deuterium-tritium fusion reaction is considered the most promising for producing fusion power. ... Fission products are the residues of fission processes. ... Castle Bravo was the first test of a Teller_Ulam configuration thermonuclear dry fuel hydrogen bomb, detonated at the Bikini Atoll on February 28, 1954. ...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Dirty-bomb
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/weapons/nuclear_bomb_chart.htm
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
EnigmaNZ said:
Oh I see. Thank you Enigma- I never heard the bombs of Japan were actually dirty bombs, but I think I got you point. Very interesting. Sounds like different degrees-
LeEnfield
Active member
There are nukes that will give out a huge burst of Gamma radiation that will kill the people and leave the surrounding area almost untouched. The Radiation will rapidly disperse allowing your troops to move in. A dirty bomb will leave the area contaminated for countless years.
I think you are refering to the neutron bomb. It use was discontinued after a lot of bad press. At the time, if the Russians didn't like some new technology the west was developing, it would get it's followers in the west, peace groups, greenies etc, to agitate to have the tech banned. We saw this with the ABM system that Regan was having researched, ignoring the fact Russian already had such a system around Moscow that is regulary updated. We saw this with weapons in space, ignoring the fact that Russia had weapons in space designed to destroy satelites back in the 1980's. Russia also produced the only partial orbit weapons delivery system, basically the rocket put the nuke into a low polar earth orbit until it was programed to do a de-orbit burn and drop in on the US from the south, the US's sensors etc were located to detect nukes coming directly from the USSR, from the north. In the case of the neutron bomb, there were front page emotive stories of how the bomb killed people why leaving cities largely intact, etc. In actuallity, the neutron damage didn't extend much past the blast damage area. So it's use on cities wasn't an issue.
The bomb was actually designed to kill tank crews, the USSR at one point had about 50,000 tanks facing off against western europe. Nato had tactical nukes but tanks can largely survive a nearby nuke. Also a regular nuke does a lot of collateral damage, especially if it had to be used nearby to a populated area. Hence the NBomb. A normal nuke large enough to irradiate the tank crew with neutrons would level the surrounding area to a considerable distance. The NBomb could be used against large tank formations, killing the crews and making the tank hot enough to prevent it's reuse, while the nearby cities would be left untouched, neutron radiation doesn't have that long a range, despite what the peace fanatics were screaming.
As far as I know, only the Chinese are developing the neutron bomb now, funny how there's no outcry over it.
"Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays. Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."
reference: http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Outlaws/faq1
"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.
In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981."
reference: http://www.britannica.com/seo/n/neutron-bomb/
The bomb was actually designed to kill tank crews, the USSR at one point had about 50,000 tanks facing off against western europe. Nato had tactical nukes but tanks can largely survive a nearby nuke. Also a regular nuke does a lot of collateral damage, especially if it had to be used nearby to a populated area. Hence the NBomb. A normal nuke large enough to irradiate the tank crew with neutrons would level the surrounding area to a considerable distance. The NBomb could be used against large tank formations, killing the crews and making the tank hot enough to prevent it's reuse, while the nearby cities would be left untouched, neutron radiation doesn't have that long a range, despite what the peace fanatics were screaming.
As far as I know, only the Chinese are developing the neutron bomb now, funny how there's no outcry over it.
"Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays. Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."
reference: http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Outlaws/faq1
"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.
In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981."
reference: http://www.britannica.com/seo/n/neutron-bomb/
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
Hugely interesting. Btw as an European I can confirm that Peace movements greenies and the like were only Moscow's tool.
specialasiankid
Active member
There pretty much the same thing.
dirty bomb is much smaller and easier to build. also can cause more devastation by the thought
conventional is something used normally to start a war. like the 2 nukes we dropped on the japs. thats more conventional.
correct me if im wrong anyone
dirty bomb is much smaller and easier to build. also can cause more devastation by the thought
conventional is something used normally to start a war. like the 2 nukes we dropped on the japs. thats more conventional.
correct me if im wrong anyone
specialasiankid said:
Dirty has nothing to do with size, it has everything to do with the ammount of radioactive fallout, and long lived radioactive byproducts produced. That has to do with the amount of fissionable material used. A fusion explosion is basically clean.
Nope, conventional means non nuclear, that is chemical explosives for instance.
Charge 7
Master Gunner
Nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (NBC) are all unconventional. One shouldn't be confused by EnigmaNZ's reference to "chemical explosives" as chemical weapons. He means explosives that are caused by a chemical reaction such as igniting gunpowder or detonating C-4. Just adding a bit of clarity. 