Affentitten Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Last B-53 gets dismantled. Imagine this bad boy landing on your foxhole! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 You wouldn't have to worry about anything eelse from then on! Interesting it is supposed to detonate on the ground - I wonder how much fallout a 9 Mt ground burst would generate?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 I also wondered, seeing as it descends by chute, what the chances were of knackering one with AA fire? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Interesting it is supposed to detonate on the ground - I wonder how much fallout a 9 Mt ground burst would generate?? Lots. Wouldn't surprise me if planners were assuming a Doomsday scenario already in progress before one of these would be used anyway. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 You wouldn't have to worry about anything eelse from then on! Interesting it is supposed to detonate on the ground - I wonder how much fallout a 9 Mt ground burst would generate?? There were 2 types. One designed to generate a lot of fallout and one not. Scary to think back to those times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 There were 2 types. One designed to generate a lot of fallout and one not. I'm puzzled. How could a ground burst not generate a lot of fallout? Granted, a bomb could be designed to generate even more fallout by packing it with cobalt etc. Is that what you mean? Scary to think back to those times. Indeed. I think people who did not live through those times have any idea how close to the edge we were living. Just going back and reading Phillip Wylie's Tomorrow or Pat Frank's Alas, Babylon should give some idea of what was being contemplated. But even those two were far too optimistic. On the Beach is more realistic in that way. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 The B53-Y1 was designed to create lasting fallout and there was the relatively clean B52-Y2. I think the critical word here is "relatively". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yeah - different casings - from Wiki: Two variants were made: the B53-Y1, a "dirty" weapon using a U-238-encased secondary, and the B53-Y2 "clean" version with a non-fissile (lead or tungsten) secondary casing. I cant' help but think that the material chucked up from a ground burst crater might have been rather significant tho - which is what I was meaning. Assuming a detonation at optimum height, a 9 megaton blast would result in a fireball with an approximate 4 to 5 km (2.5 to 3.1 mi) diameter ther's some figures about cratering here that suggest a 10 Mt blast might generate a crater of 1,490,000 m3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 I guess the fallout volume is all a bit of a moot point if a full-scale nuke war had kicked off. None of us would have been around to stress about whether we were going to get a demographic increase in cancer in 10 years' time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It's simply staggering that the mindset in the 60's was to build so many atomic weapons that should the balloon go up then the amount of destrction and fallout from the cataclysm would pretty much guarantee the wiping out of the human race (as well as most other living animals). Simply crazy, crazy stuff. I suppose in the minds of generals, the 'winner' would be the side that has the most people live past the initial blast only to realise that they're slowly going to die of radiation poisoning anyway. The scene from Dr Stangelove set in the US War Room comes to mind for a great depiction of the bizarre mindset. Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I was a Air Training Corps cadet in the early 1970's - from age 12-15 - dunno what the US equivalent would be - but 2-3 times a year we were shown films on how to "survive" nuclear explosions - what sort of cover was best, why overhad cover was required (against backscatter & fallout), distances buildings would survive various size bombs (as if that was going to be useful....) - like the films I've seen of US school kids being taught to "hide" under desks, etc..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 Because a 12 year old NZ air cadet could have been the key to the future survival of humanity! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 After i left my Air Cadet Squadron at 17 I joined the Royal Observer Corp in Colchester in a control HQ centre as a teletype operator. Basically they hoisted a drum of paper* up a tube above the bunker and when a bomb went off it would scorch the paper, which would be pulled back down and the direction and severity of the burn would be triangulated with smaller bunkers and reported upwards as a location and magnitude of the nuclear explosion. We also had nifty RAF uniforms and an armoury to keep out any civvy's trying to gain shelter *eeeek* and in training we practiced aircraft recognition - Flanker, Bear etc. Wouldn't have fancied manning one of the smaller remote 3 man bunkers i.e a glorified hole in the ground. Also just down the road was the Secret Essex Bunker near Harwich Port which was expected to get nuked as it was to be used for sending Army reinforcements by ferry to Europe.http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/mistley.htm *The Ground Zero Indicator, or GZI or shadowgraph, consisted of four horizontally mounted cardinal compass point pinhole cameras within a metal drum. Each 'camera' contained a sheet of photosensitive paper on which were printed horizontal and vertical calibration lines and, in effect, photographed the fireball of a nuclear explosion. http://www.subbrit.org.uk/rsg/sites/c/colchester/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Observer_Corps#Communications_and_technological_developments http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=82975 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Grew up with terms like throw weight amd nuclear winter myself. Childhood home(1960s-80s) was 40 miles West of Washington D.C. and about 20 miles SouthEast of Mt. Weather... and I was aware at an early age what that meant. With the inaccuracies of Soviet-era weapons, one was just as likely to land on my porch as its target. Wierd to think of a generation growing up not understanding that feeling hanging over you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 I used to work with a cameraman who had been a nuclear weapons armourer with the RAF during the early 1980s. His job was to fit the weapons onto the aircraft. He told me that they would be locked in to hardened bunkers with the plane crew and other techs on a week on, week off basis. During their week inside they were cut off from any outside media. The only contact they had was with their chain of command. It was designed to stop them from making judgement calls about whether they were doing the right thing or not if the order came to bomb up and attack. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironbar Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 I used to work with a cameraman who had been a nuclear weapons armourer with the RAF during the early 1980s. His job was to fit the weapons onto the aircraft. He told me that they would be locked in to hardened bunkers with the plane crew and other techs on a week on, week off basis. During their week inside they were cut off from any outside media. The only contact they had was with their chain of command. It was designed to stop them from making judgement calls about whether they were doing the right thing or not if the order came to bomb up and attack. Interesting, as the SAC alert facilities had some of the best cable tv packages I ever saw in the 70's; as well as (once the VCR became prevelent) ad nauseam showings of Stanley Kubrick's "Dr Strangelove," or "How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb." I'm pretty sure the guys out in the gopher holes (the ICBM facilities) didn't have cable or tv for that matter- but I would suspect much less a SAC mind control attempt than the fact that they were out in the middle of freaking nowhere. As for being locked in, shoot you could never park anywhere near the BX for all the spaces reserved for the alert vehicles. If you saw an alert vehicle parked in base housing, with all but one of the crewmembers present you could be pretty sure it was the equivalent of a conjugal visit. Let the Nav get finished and drive around and park in front of the EWO's house. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Remember the good times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Back in the Cold War Daze everybody was concerned about nuclear winter. Today everyone is concerned about Global Warming. One or 2 of these puppies on a desert island could create B-53 Spring time for a nice balancing effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 But the fallout effects might not be so pleasant. In any event, that's using a sledgehammer to open peanuts. Gotta be a more elegant solution than that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 But the fallout effects might not be so pleasant. In any event, that's using a sledgehammer to open peanuts. Gotta be a more elegant solution than that. Michael Really? What's fallout? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 What's fallout? That invisible stuff that kills you long after you thought you had made it through safely. In other words, the gift that keeps on giving. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 That invisible stuff that kills you long after you thought you had made it through safely. In other words, the gift that keeps on giving. Michael Sarcasm, right? You really needed to answer my last? And you really needed to answer the my 1st post about using the nuke bombs to cool the world down? (Those were sarcasm or humor too) Wait, I have a better response... - - - - You are correct Michael. My posts were totally in error. You are 100% correct. - - - - Feel free to add that to your sig line 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Sarcasm, right? Right. Spotted it right away, but I had such a great reply that I couldn't deny the world its beauty and...er...greatness. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildman Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 It was my flight that got rid of the last B-53 at Minot AFB...the bombs were frickin' huge and I'm glad their gone. The parachute changes on them were dangerous as heck. We've got smaller bombs that do the same job with less material and less fallout. But the reduction of our arsenal has been an ongoing effort for about 15+ years now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noxnoctum Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Wonder why we still need thousands of nukes... Surely a few hundred at most is enough to destroy the surface of the earth? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.