|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 11, 2005 20:04:03 GMT -5
Well nuclear weapons do a lot more than just kill the target. There is a great deal of indiscriminant destruction including the environement for future generation. We're talking radio active here. I think you've seen too many science fiction movies or been to too many anti-nuclear protest rallies. Nuclear fission bombs can release relatively huge amounts of energy. There are also types that release relatively little energy at all. They also release subatomic "alpha" particles (helium nuclei), "beta" particles (similar to electrons), and "gamma" radiation. When a nuclear device explodes, the alpha particles slow quickly, gain electrons and become helium atoms. Once Beta particles slow down, they become just like regular electrons and can be picked up by positively charged ions. Gamma Rays are very dangerous. They travel until they hit something. They like any other form of electromagnetic radiation, such as a radio station signal or a beam of light. Gamma rays exist only as long as they have energy. Once their energy is spent, whether in air or in solid materials, they cease to exist. Being hit by gamma radiation doesn't cause something to become radioactive anymore than being hit by a microwave. Neutron particles make up a small part of the radiation. They can make other materials radioactive but the effects disappate quickly. We can go to sites were nuclear bombs have been detonated -- White Sands, NM, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. These sites are not radioactive.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 12, 2005 9:38:16 GMT -5
It depends on your definition of "quick". Nuclear explosions can leave places completely unihabitable for years because of the high levels of radiation. That is why the neutron bomb was supposed to be so nice as far as a tactical weapon, because it wasn'ts supposed to produce radioactive fallout. It is the fallout that killed a vast majority of the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So yes, we can go to the places where nuclear bombs hav been detonated, but it has now been decades since the last time bombs were detonated there.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 12, 2005 15:57:05 GMT -5
It depends on your definition of "quick". Nuclear explosions can leave places completely unihabitable for years because of the high levels of radiation. That is why the neutron bomb was supposed to be so nice as far as a tactical weapon, because it wasn'ts supposed to produce radioactive fallout. It is the fallout that killed a vast majority of the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So yes, we can go to the places where nuclear bombs hav been detonated, but it has now been decades since the last time bombs were detonated there. Sorry, but it was the thermal energy blast that killed most (80,000) of the people died as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima. Secondly, some 60,000 people died from accute radiation poisoning from the gamma radiation blast at the time of detonation. By the end of 1945, about 140,000 had died from the bombing. By 2004 the estimated total number of deaths was around 240,000. The bomb over Hiroshima was detonated 2,000 ft above the city. It was not a surface detonation. There was not a great deal of fallout. The city was rebuilt immediately after the war. In 1949, Hiroshima was proclaimed a City of Peace by the Japanese parliament. At Nagasaki, some 75,000 people were killed due to the thermal blast and about the the same number were killed due to radiation. It too was rebuilt after the war. US Nuclear weapons are not the "dirty" weapons of the movies and books of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Books like On the Beach are examples of what authors with no real knowlege of nuclear physics can make a impressionable public think about nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 13, 2005 23:25:08 GMT -5
If you think that nuclear weapons do not leave fallout for substantial lengths of time, then you need to study them more. It is true that a nuclear weapon will produce less fallout in an airburst than a surface explosion, but it will still produce fallout. Also, the more powerful the bomb, the more fallout it will have. Hydrogen (fusion) bombs are far dirtier than regular fision bombs. This fallout is caused from any remaining nuclear fuel. Any unspent fuel will then settle attached to water, dust, and particulates that are picked up during the explosion. Some of these radioactive elements do have half-lives of seconds or less, but there are some that have half-lives in the years. If you want to see a place that was uninhabitable for decades, just look up bikini atoll, where more than 20 hydrogen and atomic bombs were tested.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 14, 2005 18:52:21 GMT -5
Yes, the atolls and islands in the Pacific Proving Grounds are still radioactive from the testing of nuclear weapons there in the 1940s and 1950s. Bikini Atoll was the site of more than 20 hydrogen and atomic bomb tests. Hydrogen (fusion) bombs use a "igniter" of fissionable matter to get the fusion process started. This fussion material ends up making the bomb "dirty." Combine this with the vaporized water that gets sucked up and gets ionized, the explosions at the Pacific Proving Grounds were dirtier than the explosions from todays B61 & B88 bombs and W61 & W88 Missile warheads.
You must also remember the number of tests at this site. Saying any single site that a nuclear weapon is used on will end up like Bikini Atoll is preposterous. That's like saying I can't start a camp fire because because someone burned downed a warehouse full of fireworks onetime.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 14, 2005 19:02:42 GMT -5
What are we arguing about again? I can't seem to remember. It is true that a single nuclear explosion in a location will not keep it radioactive for as long as Bikini Atoll has been, but it can still leave it in an unlivable condition for years if a sufficiently large weapon is used.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 15, 2005 16:55:59 GMT -5
What are we arguing about again? I can't seem to remember. It is true that a single nuclear explosion in a location will not keep it radioactive for as long as Bikini Atoll has been, but it can still leave it in an unlivable condition for years if a sufficiently large weapon is used. Cite your source! How big a weapon? How many years? Define an unlivable condition. Don't use vague words either. Use clearly defined terms. How do you "know" this?
You were arguing that the US (or anyone else) should never use nuclear weapons becuase it will leave the enviroment radioactive for future generations.
I on the other hand was arguing that the sites that had been the targets of nuclear weapons or tests don't bear out your conclusion. The Pacific Proving Grounds are a different story in that fusion weapons weapons were used there, the number of tests was large (over 2,000 in the area) and detonations over water create more fallout than detonations over land.
Obviously the best solution is not to use any weapons at all. But if the US military is to defend this nation, to deny it any option to detour its enemies from attacking in the first place is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Aug 15, 2005 18:51:20 GMT -5
I'll get back to you on the details. I have to look them up again.
However, I find it interesting that you say that the US should be allowed to use any weapon to defend its sovereignty. Lets delve deeper into this issue, shall we? Lets take China as an example, since as far as military might and leadership, it looks like it will be the largest threat to the US in the future if any large scale wars are started.
Do you not have any problem with the United States using nuclear weapons to destroy targets such as Beijing, Shanghai, or Hong Kong, or other large civilian population centers? What about other types of weapons? Would you be for the use of chemical weapons, such as nerve gases? How about biological weapons? Would spreading some doctored version of the small pox virus which kills in days and only the US has an antidote to be all right? How about torture/degredation/killing of captured enemy combatants in order to gain information over our enemies? Are all weapons at our disposal really perfectly fine to use?
|
|